From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SELECT CAST(123 AS char) -> 1 |
Date: | 2008-02-16 19:05:41 |
Message-ID: | 20080216110308.T93259@megazone.bigpanda.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> > On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Also, section 6.10 <cast specification> defines an explicit cast to
> >> a fixed-length string type as truncating or padding to the target
> >> length (LTD):
>
> > Are you sure that's the correct section to be using? Isn't that 6.10
> > General Rules 5c which is if the source type is a fixed or variable
> > length character string? Wouldn't the correct place for an int->char
> > conversion be 5a or am I misreading it?
>
> Hm, good point, so really we ought to have a separate casting path for
> numeric types to char(n). However, this section still doesn't offer
> any support for the OP's desire to auto-size the result; it says
> that you get an error if the result doesn't fit in the declared
> length:
Yeah. Although, IIRC, it was one of the options he mentioned as being
better than getting the first character but not what he really wanted.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrej Ricnik-Bay | 2008-02-16 19:47:55 | Re: Are indexes blown? |
Previous Message | Ken Johanson | 2008-02-16 17:04:36 | Re: Strict-typing benefits/costs |