Tom Lane wrote:
The nice thing about a one byte integer is that it's at the very bottom of the food chain. Since casting upwards is implicit and downwards is explicit, NOTHING casts implicitly to it. As such I'm hoping (like I said in my original post - I'm no expert) that this will be a harmless addition.
I don't think we've really solved the numeric-hierarchy casting problems well enough to be able to stand adding another member of the hierarchy. In particular, what impact is this going to have on implicit typing of integer constants?
regards, tom lane
If there is anything you can think of that will allow me to verify this claim, do let me know.
Hmm - replying to my own post.
I did cut one corner, in that I did not implement tiny->int8 and tiny->non integers yet. That is, however, an implementation detail rather than a principal problem. If that is the whole problem, I'll add those as well. I would rather, before doing the extra work, hear that this is indeed all that is needed to get it in.
Having said that, some sort of implicit casts of implicit casts results does seem necessary in postgres. I don't think that leaving this patch out will be the way to solve this.
-- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Systems Consulting http://www.lingnu.com/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?