| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Implicit casts to text |
| Date: | 2007-04-02 15:40:22 |
| Message-ID: | 200704021740.22663.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Am Montag, 2. April 2007 09:17 schrieb Tom Lane:
> The scheme that was in the back of my mind was to do this at the same
> time as providing a general facility for casting *every* type to and
> from text, by means of their I/O functions if no specialized cast is
> provided in pg_cast. This would improve functionality, thus providing
> a salve to the annoyance of users whose code the restriction breaks:
> we can certainly argue that it wouldn't do for all those automatically
> created casts to be implicit. At the same time it'd let us eliminate
> redundant text-to/from-foo code that's currently in place for some but
> not all datatypes.
That's the first time I hear of such a scheme. Anyway, the point of this
exercise is to reduce misbehavior by explicit casting. I don't see how
implicitly adding more casting paths helps that or is even related to that.
Even if we had the automatic cast facility that you describe, and I find it
highly suspicious, such casts could at most be of the explicit category, so
how would that help users who currently rely on the implicit ones?
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-02 16:20:35 | Re: One-time plans |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2007-04-02 14:54:14 | Re: Statistics on views (execute a plan from within analyze) |