DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
	:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	b=AzTDELTzQ0hGYV8dc1MTpIFDSLh3SgyJdr+vW6aQOomIHHdxNgR/LjMGqT1LK2IP/R
	2JVf51CC6ds77E7uiyyMbBCBJT7apzy+xqar/YANAqOeFa0cstidg+hGjFSx4xlpT4pd
	U43CUuZnLQ84esAlYrm+zBktlsXV0yDkAdnKo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <11645.1277257777@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <4C207403.3080103@gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikX89l8iqkpcAJvxlJl5fP7dvyhmrHU8oer-lfY@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100622230754.GE15203@fetter.org>
	<AANLkTilfZooZpo_GqnAZHE9e_yk_KhVOmpU1AT-V-WW_@mail.gmail.com>
	<11645.1277257777@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Mike Toews <mwtoews@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 07:29:49 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikILxU1urbGTuEmNSjKHsGVFzPFkCIgXuLo8f34@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: INTEGER range ("-2147483648" is not accepted.)
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Thom Brown <thombrown@gmail.com>, David Fetter <david@fetter.org>,
	Satoshi Nagayasu <satoshi.nagayasu@gmail.com>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 22 June 2010 18:49, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Thom Brown <thombrown@gmail.com> writes:
>> Is that the right behaviour though? =A0Shouldn't the signed value reach
>> the cast step rather than the absolute value? =A0Or maybe Postgres could
>> implicitly accept -12345::integer to be (-12345)::integer. =A0Is there a
>> blocking reason as to why it must work this way?
>
> Yes. =A0There is no reason to assume that - means the same thing for ever=
y
> datatype. =A0In general, :: should (and does) bind tighter than *every*
> operator, to ensure that the appropriately typed operator is applied.
>

Sorry for adding to the non-DOC drift, but why is - assumed to be a
unary operator on an unsigned integer, rather than parsed as part of
an integer? Integers have digits with an optional - or + prefix (not
unary operators). E.g., ([+\-]?[0-9]+)

-Mike