Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Implicit casts to text

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 (view raw or flat)
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/

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-04-02 16:20:35
Subject: Re: One-time plans
Previous:From: Martijn van OosterhoutDate: 2007-04-02 14:54:14
Subject: Re: Statistics on views (execute a plan from within analyze)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group