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: 2007-04-03 15:10:02
Message-ID: 200704031710.02667.peter_e@gmx.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Am Montag, 2. April 2007 18:41 schrieb Tom Lane:
> Certainly they'd all be explicit-only.  From a technical perspective
> there's no need to do the two things at the same time; I'm just opining
> that we could sell it easier if we did them together.  If we just do
> this part, what users will see is that we broke their queries for what
> to them will appear to be no particular gain.

I find this method of selling features very unusual.  The two issues under 
consideration have nothing in common except that they have "cast" in their 
subject line.  The reduction of implicit casts to text has to stand on its 
own: the purpose is to produce more reliable expression behavior.  Those 
whose queries this would break are not helped by having other casts available 
without work; they'd still have to do manual fixups.  So what we'd have 
is "Sorry, casting int to text implicitly doesn't work anymore, but instead 
you can cast $othertype to text explicitly."  How does that help anyone?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Marko KreenDate: 2007-04-03 15:14:29
Subject: Re: PL/Python warnings in CVS HEAD
Previous:From: Tim GoodaireDate: 2007-04-03 14:47:24
Subject: "Garbled" postgres logs

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