Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Whatever happened to this patch?
> I think we bounced it on the grounds that it would represent a
> fundamental change in plpgsql behavior and break a whole lot of
> applications. People have been relying on plpgsql's coerce-via-IO
> assignment behavior for ten years. If you prefer coerce via
> cast conversion, you can get that by writing an explicit cast.
> Now it is true that a lot of the uses for that were subsumed when
> we added coerce-via-IO to the native cast capabilities; but I'm
> still quite scared of what this would break, and I don't see any
> field demand for a change.
Thanks. Sorry to be asking so many questions but it is the only way I
can be sure we have covered everything.
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
PG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2010-02-27 03:38:49|
|Subject: Re: ALTER ROLE/DATABASE RESET ALL versus security|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-02-27 03:27:16|
|Subject: Re: plpgsql: numeric assignment to an integer variable errors out |