From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bill Studenmund <wrstuden(at)netbsd(dot)org> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |
Date: | 2002-01-24 01:22:26 |
Message-ID: | 20020123165321.K23306-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Bill Studenmund wrote:
What I was getting at was that Tom's behavior (or even mine) is more
similar to the currently described behavior than the suggested one.
> > > made the call ambiguous, you wanted the coercion to happen. Or at least
> > > you weren't concerned that it might.
> >
> > I still disagree. If I make a complex number type in my schema,
> > I don't really intend integer+integer to convert to complex and give me a
> > complex answer even if I want to be able to cast integers into complex.
> > AFAIK there's no way to specify that I want to make the function
> > complex(integer) such that I can do CAST(1 as complex) but not as an
> > implicit cast.
>
> Note: I've been talking about functions, and you're talking about
> operators. While operators are syntactic sugar for functions, one big
> difference is that you can't specify explicit schemas for operators (nor
> do I think you should be able to). I think exact matches for operators
> anywhere in the path would be better than local coercable ones.
I'd say the same thing for a random math function as well. For example
if there was a square(int) that returned $1*$1 and I made a square for my
complex type, I'd still expect that square(5) is an integer rather than a
complex using the square(complex). For example, I'd expect square(5) to
be a valid length argument to substr.
> Does SQL'99 say anything about this?
That I don't know about (don't have a draft around to look at). I'm not
sure that it'd have these problems though unless it's got the same sort of
coercion system.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2002-01-24 01:36:20 | Re: PostgreSQL crashes with Qmail-SQL |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-24 01:20:58 | Re: Savepoints |