"Ryan Bradetich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am looking to take advantage of PostgreSQL extensible type system
> and implement unsigned integer support.
This has been proposed before, and foundered before on the question
of implicit coercions. If you're willing to make all coercions *to*
unsigned types be explicit (or at most assignment), then I think
it can be made to work without breaking anything. But usually the
folk who ask for this feature are hoping that bare integer literals
like "42" will get interpreted as unsigned when they want them to be.
The problem with that wish is illustrated by
select 1500000000 + 1500000000;
These literals might be either int4 or uint4, therefore this command
might yield either an integer-overflow error or 3000000000::uint4.
That's not a distinction you can fuzz over --- it's got to be one
or the other, and backwards compatibility says it'd better be the
first.
> I am hoping the removal of many of the implicit casts in
> PostgreSQL 8.3 will simplify this task to where this objection can be
> removed.
The implicit casts we removed were cross-type-category cases.
If you hope for unsigned types to be considered part of the numeric
category, there's no guidance for you there. In fact, the real nub
of the problem is what type shall be initially assigned to an
integer-looking literal, and how will you get things to behave sanely
if that initial choice wasn't what was desired. We still have some
issues around the fact that "42" isn't considered a smallint. Throwing
in another possible meaning isn't going to help.
> My understanding is the SQL standard does not provide support for
> unsigned integers, so I am planning on making all casts from unsigned
> integers to other data types explicit.
It's really the other direction that would be contentious ...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
