| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: plpgsql: numeric assignment to an integer variable errors out |
| Date: | 2010-02-27 03:27:16 |
| Message-ID: | 11846.1267241236@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-02-27 03:29:30 | Re: plpgsql: numeric assignment to an integer variable errors out |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-02-27 03:23:19 | Re: ECPG, two varchars with same name on same line |