"Jaime Casanova" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > then the patch is right but it seems to me like that is broking the > law of less surprise i expected -2::uint1 to be equivalent to > (-2)::uint1 that should be at least documented, no?
See the precedence table here: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/sql-syntax-lexical.html#SQL-PRECEDENCE :: binds more tightly than -, and always has. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
