From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: datatype of constant is not propagated into aggregate query |
Date: | 2012-03-11 15:50:05 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRCXvyvYFDqzDbBYm+04SCgc3nZfr_P5nh+GOnm8wAM3Fw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2012/3/11 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> postgres=# insert into t1 select distinct '2001-01-01', 1 from
>> generate_series(1,3);
>> ERROR: column "d" is of type date but expression is of type text
>> LINE 1: insert into t1 select distinct '2001-01-01', 1 from generate...
>> ^
>> HINT: You will need to rewrite or cast the expression.
>
> The DISTINCT forces the sub-SELECT to decide on a type for the constant
> (so that it can pick a semantics for DISTINCT-ing). And it chooses text
> by default. This is maybe not terribly convenient, but I'm not sure it
> would be a good idea at all for a surrounding INSERT to change the
> semantics of a SELECT. Even discounting the implementation
> difficulties, I don't think that'd satisfy the POLA.
>
> (We do have a hack for adjusting the type if what the sub-select returns
> is still of type UNKNOWN; that's safe because it implies that the
> sub-select does not care about the type of the result column.)
in this case the constant is forwarded to result without any change,
so it can be UNKNOWN.
Pavel
>
> regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-03-11 16:00:47 | Re: NULL's support in SP-GiST |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-03-11 15:45:35 | Re: datatype of constant is not propagated into aggregate query |