On 22 June 2010 18:49, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > Thom Brown <[email protected]> writes: >> Is that the right behaviour though? Shouldn't the signed value reach >> the cast step rather than the absolute value? Or maybe Postgres could >> implicitly accept -12345::integer to be (-12345)::integer. Is there a >> blocking reason as to why it must work this way? > > Yes. There is no reason to assume that - means the same thing for every > datatype. In general, :: should (and does) bind tighter than *every* > operator, to ensure that the appropriately typed operator is applied. >
Sorry for adding to the non-DOC drift, but why is - assumed to be a unary operator on an unsigned integer, rather than parsed as part of an integer? Integers have digits with an optional - or + prefix (not unary operators). E.g., ([+\-]?[0-9]+) -Mike -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
