Re: Type Categories for User-Defined Types

"Ryan Bradetich" <rbradetich@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Yeah, that's the point of the proposal.  I think the issue has come up
>> once or twice before, too, else I'd not be so interested in a general
>> solution.  (digs in archives ... there was some discussion of this
>> in connection with unsigned integer types, and I seem to recall older
>> threads but can't find any right now.)

> Anything I should be looking into and/or testing for unsigned integer support?

Dunno, I forget what the conclusion was about implicit casting for the
unsigned types in your proposal.  Have you experimented with seeing
whether, eg, UNION'ing an unsigned with some signed-integer value
behaves sensibly?

The thread I mention above was a year or so back and was originated by
someone who wanted to duplicate mysql's behavior.  Your proposal is
a lot more limited and might not really need to try to put the unsigned
types into the numeric category.
        regards, tom lane