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

Re: data type of projected item in a union not correct

From: the6campbells <the6campbells(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: data type of projected item in a union not correct
Date: 2012-09-25 01:26:17
Message-ID: CAFEjsq7JgMUBnprRNMGUhiez_UfZ=6bdE3kTda01zGxAoyXjrw@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-jdbc
per the ISO-SQL 20xx specification and many vendors vrchar(32)



On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 8:29 PM, David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:

> On Sep 24, 2012, at 19:43, the6campbells <the6campbells(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > Database 9.0.4
> > Driver PostgreSQL 9.1 JDBC4 (build 902)
> >
> >
> > The following projection is not described with the expected
> type+precision as one would expect from ISO-SQL
> >
> > Is this a known Postgres bug, quirk or ....
> >
> > t1.c1 char(32)
> > t2.c1 varchar(32)
> >
> > select t1.c1 returns precision of 32
> > select t2.c1 returned precision of 32
> >
> >
> > t1.c1
> > union
> > t2.c1
> >
> > t2.c1
> > union
> > t1.c1
> >
> > returns precision 2147483647
> >
> >
>
> From the description here
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/interactive/typeconv-union-case.html
>
> I infer that since the two types are not the same they are both converted
> to the preferred base type "text" which while it should have an undefined
> precision instead is reported to have an arbitrary large precision.
>
> What result do you feel it should report and for what reason?
>
> David J.
>
>

In response to

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: the6campbellsDate: 2012-09-25 01:33:00
Subject: data set combination of integer and decimal/numeric returns wrong result type
Previous:From: David JohnstonDate: 2012-09-25 00:29:12
Subject: Re: data type of projected item in a union not correct

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