Re: Implicit casts to text

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Montag, 2. April 2007 18:41 schrieb Tom Lane:
> > Certainly they'd all be explicit-only. ?From a technical perspective
> > there's no need to do the two things at the same time; I'm just opining
> > that we could sell it easier if we did them together. ?If we just do
> > this part, what users will see is that we broke their queries for what
> > to them will appear to be no particular gain.
>
> I find this method of selling features very unusual. The two issues under
> consideration have nothing in common except that they have "cast" in their
> subject line. The reduction of implicit casts to text has to stand on its
> own: the purpose is to produce more reliable expression behavior. Those
> whose queries this would break are not helped by having other casts available
> without work; they'd still have to do manual fixups. So what we'd have
> is "Sorry, casting int to text implicitly doesn't work anymore, but instead
> you can cast $othertype to text explicitly." How does that help anyone?

I assumed the issue was that there might not be explicit casts for every
case were were now disallowing.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +