"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:

:: 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:

Reply via email to