Joe Conway wrote:
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
I'll stress again - I don't mind doing all the work associated with
any once of the above choices. All I'm asking is that we agree on
which one will be best for this project. As far as I'm concerned,
Choice 2 involves the least amount of work, but I thi
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
I'll stress again - I don't mind doing all the work associated with any
once of the above choices. All I'm asking is that we agree on which one
will be best for this project. As far as I'm concerned, Choice 2
involves the least amount of work, but I think Choice 1 will ser
Hi Tom,
Tom Lane wrote:
I need this new type because ...
Um, the reason we have an extensible type system is so that people can
make their own datatypes. You don't have to get a type accepted into
the base system in order to use it yourself.
...
The criterion for adding new types to the
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have sent a patch to implement tinyint, an unsigned one byte integer,
> ...
> Now, I'm not against neither simplifying the type system nor having a
> "unsigned" keyword. The thing is that between these two remarks, my
> patch was not applied and I
Hi all,
I have sent a patch to implement tinyint, an unsigned one byte integer,
for MS SQL compatibility. The replies I got were under two categories.
One was "our type system is complicated enough", and the other was "it
should be signed and we should have a general "unsigned" keyword.
Now, I
