> : Why is NUMERIC not considered numeric by TypeCategory()? Why is DATE not
> : considered a datetime type? Isn't this routine fundamentally broken?
> : If we need a category it should be taken from a pg_type field, not
> : hardwired in code...
> Thomas, what say you?
Not sure why DATE is not a date/time type. NUMERIC is not included for
two reasons: it is newer than the other code, and I'm not certain
where it should appear in a "promotion heirarchy" due to its
But in general you are right. I did the implementation using hardcoded
info, with the expectation that the eventual "right answer" would
involve allowing the type equivalence *and* type promotion info to be
stored in a table. For one thing, that is the only way afaik to get
user-defined types to participate in this implicit type coersion
But at the time I didn't want to take the leap to defining a new table
or adding a column(s) to pg_type, until the current scheme was in the
field for a while and others had a chance to exercise it and
I was assuming that a new table would be required, rather than using
pg_type, but maybe we only need two columns in a one-to-one
relationship and if so then pg_type might suffice. Are new columns
"typecategory" and "promotiontype" sufficient??
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California
In response to
pgsql-interfaces by date
|Next:||From: Ken J. Wright||Date: 2000-02-02 15:50:52|
|Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] problem with numeric|
|Previous:||From: Peter Mount||Date: 2000-02-02 11:37:48|
|Subject: RE: [INTERFACES] jdbc and ie explorer|