"Ryan Bradetich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yeah, that's the point of the proposal. I think the issue has come up
>> once or twice before, too, else I'd not be so interested in a general
>> solution. (digs in archives ... there was some discussion of this
>> in connection with unsigned integer types, and I seem to recall older
>> threads but can't find any right now.)
> Anything I should be looking into and/or testing for unsigned integer support?
Dunno, I forget what the conclusion was about implicit casting for the
unsigned types in your proposal. Have you experimented with seeing
whether, eg, UNION'ing an unsigned with some signed-integer value
behaves sensibly?
The thread I mention above was a year or so back and was originated by
someone who wanted to duplicate mysql's behavior. Your proposal is
a lot more limited and might not really need to try to put the unsigned
types into the numeric category.
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
