Re: Unsigned integer types

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Maciej Gajewski <maciej(dot)gajewski0(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Unsigned integer types
Date: 2013-05-29 11:47:07
Message-ID: CA+TgmobR89ZrMVBVsQ=QPjzOAamSD=8gy-VtfByCxAnMKVPygA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:33 AM, Maciej Gajewski
<maciej(dot)gajewski0(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 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).

Seems pretty sensible to me.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Clark C. Evans 2013-05-29 11:49:45 Re: GRANT role_name TO role_name ON database_name
Previous Message Robert Haas 2013-05-29 11:42:57 Re: preserving forensic information when we freeze