Re: Timestamp operator error

Tom,

> Emergency fix? This operator didn't behave reasonably in 7.1 either
> (at least not by my definition of reasonable). What exactly would
> you have us do?

No, not you! For me to fix. You're a volunteer, as far as I'm
involved. I just wanted suggestions for a quick fix. When I found
the other issues, it was more reasonable to search-and-replace on
values ("interval"() for interval() was easy). I can't figure out how
to pattern match on interval + timestamp, especially with variables
involved.

Is there a way, for example, that I could disallow the TIMESTAMP -->
DATE implicit conversion in my code? That would break all the
functions and views with this problem, and then I could identify them.

> Yah. Offhand I'd argue that no information-discarding conversion
> should be implicitly invokable. date->timestamp is fine;
> timestamp->date should require an explicit cast. I've already
> proposed
> that we add a flag to pg_proc to distinguish implicit from explicit
> conversion operations, and no one complained. But we have not yet
> begun to argue about exactly which conversions should be allowed
> implicitly...

Hey, feel free to take up the argument here, too! It is a SQL topic,
after all ...

-Josh

______AGLIO DATABASE SOLUTIONS___________________________
Josh Berkus
Complete information technology josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com
and data management solutions (415) 565-7293
for law firms, small businesses fax 621-2533
and non-profit organizations. San Francisco