Re:

En Fri, 13 Sep 2002 00:46:00 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> escribió:

> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>
> > Sure it is. The float=>int casts need to be made implicit, or we'll have
> > tons of problems like this.
>
> Well, yeah. That did not seem to bother anyone last spring, when we
> were discussing tightening the implicit-casting rules. Shall we
> abandon all that work and go back to "any available cast can be applied
> implicitly"?

Implicit float to int loses precision, so it shouldn't be implicit,
should it?

Maybe the solution is to make 7.3 pg_dump smart enough to add explicit
casts where default values demand them... Is this possible? Are there
other cases where tightening implicit casts is going to bit users?

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]atentus.com>)
El sentido de las cosas no viene de las cosas, sino de
las inteligencias que las aplican a sus problemas diarios
en busca del progreso. (Ernesto Hernández-Novich)