Re: [HACKERS] Unsigned integer types

2013-05-31 Thread Fabien COELHO
If you do it, having uint1 (1 byte) would be nice as well. There is a signed 1byte int on PGXN, FWIW: http://pgxn.org/extension/tinyint That's good, thanks for the pointer! However, it is a signed tinyint (-128..127 range), not an unsigned one. -- Fabien. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers maili

Re: [HACKERS] Unsigned integer types

2013-05-31 Thread David E. Wheeler
On May 29, 2013, at 10:48 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > If you do it, having uint1 (1 byte) would be nice as well. There is a signed 1byte int on PGXN, FWIW: http://pgxn.org/extension/tinyint Best, David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes

Re: [HACKERS] Unsigned integer types

2013-05-29 Thread Fabien COELHO
I agree that extensions are undermarketed. Although pgxn is a good step, I could not find it from "postgresql.org":-( I propose to not integrate the unsigned types into existing promotion hierarchy, and behave just like gcc would with -Werror: require explicit cast. Between them, the unsigned

Re: [HACKERS] Unsigned integer types

2013-05-29 Thread Hannu Krosing
On 05/29/2013 11:33 AM, Maciej Gajewski wrote: > I will implement it as an extension then. > > My feeling is that PostgreSQL extensions tend to fall into obscurity. > As an ordinary user it took me really long time to find out that > interesting features are available in form of extensions; they ar

Re: [HACKERS] Unsigned integer types

2013-05-29 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:33 AM, Maciej Gajewski wrote: > I propose to not integrate the unsigned types into existing promotion > hierarchy, and behave just like gcc would with -Werror: require > explicit cast. Between them, the unsigned types would be automatically > converted up (uint2 > uint4 >

Re: [HACKERS] Unsigned integer types

2013-05-29 Thread Maciej Gajewski
I will implement it as an extension then. My feeling is that PostgreSQL extensions tend to fall into obscurity. As an ordinary user it took me really long time to find out that interesting features are available in form of extensions; they are certainly under-marketed. But this is a topic for sepa

Re: [HACKERS] Unsigned integer types

2013-05-28 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 05/28/2013 07:00 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 05:57:41PM -0500, Jim Nasby wrote: Did you try 'oid' as an unsigned int4? Using an internal catalog type for user data seems like a horrible idea to me... Uh, not sure if we can say oid is only an internal catalog type. It

Re: [HACKERS] Unsigned integer types

2013-05-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 05:57:41PM -0500, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 5/28/13 4:07 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:17:42AM +0200, Maciej Gajewski wrote: > >>2. INTEGER > >> > >>I had to store a record with several uint32. I had to store an awful > >>lot of them; hundreds GB of data

Re: [HACKERS] Unsigned integer types

2013-05-28 Thread David Johnston
Maciej Gajewski wrote > I'm also afraid that with > the extension I'd be left on my own maintaining it forever. While if > this could go into the core product, it would live forever. Clarification from the gallery: are we talking an extension or a custom PostgreSQL build/fork? If it is an extensi

Re: [HACKERS] Unsigned integer types

2013-05-28 Thread Jim Nasby
On 5/28/13 4:07 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:17:42AM +0200, Maciej Gajewski wrote: 2. INTEGER I had to store a record with several uint32. I had to store an awful lot of them; hundreds GB of data per day. Roughly half of the record consists of uint32 fields. Increasing th

Re: [HACKERS] Unsigned integer types

2013-05-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:17:42AM +0200, Maciej Gajewski wrote: > 2. INTEGER > > I had to store a record with several uint32. I had to store an awful > lot of them; hundreds GB of data per day. Roughly half of the record > consists of uint32 fields. > Increasing the data type to bigint would mean

Re: [HACKERS] Unsigned integer types

2013-05-28 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 05/28/2013 05:17 AM, Maciej Gajewski wrote: I'm afraid that implementing uints as and extension would introduce some performance penalty (I may be wrong). You are. I'm also afraid that with the extension I'd be left on my own maintaining it forever. While if this could go into the core pr

Re: [HACKERS] Unsigned integer types

2013-05-28 Thread Maciej Gajewski
The reasons are: performance, storage and frustration. I think the frustration comes from the fact that unsigned integers are universally available, except in PostgreSQL. I work with a really complex system, with many moving parts, and Postgres really is one of the components that causes the least

Re: [HACKERS] Unsigned integer types

2013-05-27 Thread Tom Lane
Maciej Gajewski writes: > The lack of unsigned integer types is one of the biggest sources of > grief in my daily work with pgsql. > Before I go and start hacking, I'd like to discuss few points: > 1. Is there a strong objection against merging this kind of patch? Basically, there is zero chance

Re: [HACKERS] Unsigned integer types

2013-05-27 Thread Albe Laurenz
Maciej Gajewski wrote: > I know this topic was discussed before, but there doesn't seem to be > any conclusion. > > The lack of unsigned integer types is one of the biggest sources of > grief in my daily work with pgsql. > > Before I go and start hacking, I'd like to discuss few points: > > 1. I

[HACKERS] Unsigned integer types

2013-05-27 Thread Maciej Gajewski
Hi all I know this topic was discussed before, but there doesn't seem to be any conclusion. The lack of unsigned integer types is one of the biggest sources of grief in my daily work with pgsql. Before I go and start hacking, I'd like to discuss few points: 1. Is there a strong objection agains