Jim Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there any technical reason why we don't support unsigned ints or
> tinyint? Just a matter of no one feeling the itch?
The question is whether it's worth complicating the numeric-type
promotion hierarchy even more. A variant int type probably isn't wort
On Dec 4, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
You can already use "char" to store 1 byte values, though unless
there are
several of these in a row, you won't save any space because of
alignment.
There's also boolean...
Is there any technical reason why we don't support unsigned ints or
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 20:41:32 +,
Albert Strasheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Description:Feature request: tinyint and unsigned types
You can already use "char" to store 1 byte values, though unless there are
several of these in a row, you won't save any space because of align
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 2802
Logged by: Albert Strasheim
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.1
Operating system: Windows
Description:Feature request: tinyint and unsigned types
Details:
MySQL's support for 1-byte i
