Re: Unsigned integer types

On 05/29/2013 11:33 AM, Maciej Gajewski wrote:
> I will implement it as an extension then.
>
> My feeling is that PostgreSQL extensions tend to fall into obscurity.
> As an ordinary user it took me really long time to find out that
> interesting features are available in form of extensions; they are
> certainly under-marketed. But this is a topic for separate discussion.
>
>> You have not at all addressed the real problem with doing what you are asking for, the one that Tom Lane stated:
>
>>> Basically, there is zero chance this will happen unless you can find
>>> a way of fitting them into the numeric promotion hierarchy that doesn't
>>> break a lot of existing applications. We have looked at this more than
>>> once, if memory serves, and failed to come up with a workable design
>>> that didn't seem to violate the POLA.
>>>
> I'm sorry, I thought my proposal was clear.
>
> I propose to not integrate the unsigned types into existing promotion
> hierarchy, and behave just like gcc would with -Werror: require
> explicit cast. Between them, the unsigned types would be automatically
> converted up (uint2 > uint4 > uint8).
+1

(And we could even put some possible sample cast sets in contrib for those
who need automatic casts and are willing to do the required debugging )

--
Hannu Krosing
PostgreSQL Consultant
Performance, Scalability and High Availability
2ndQuadrant Nordic OÜ