Re: boolean <=> text explicit casts

From: Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: boolean <=> text explicit casts
Date: 2007-06-18 23:52:42
Message-ID: 5AE05AC8-BFEA-45ED-9E9F-C1A6D0952078@decibel.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

On May 30, 2007, at 3:40 PM, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-30-05 at 21:23 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I'm not sure what your rationale was for creating lower-case words
>> instead of upper case, except for it looks nicer. Is there a
>> technical
>> reason?
>
> There's no real technical reason: the standard says upper-case, but
> PG's
> general philosophy of case folding would suggest folding to lower-
> case.
> If we were compliant with the spec's case folding requirements then
> emitting uppercase would be the clear choice, but since we aren't, I
> don't have strong feelings either way.

Sorry for the late reply...

I'm worried that this would make us incompatible with cross-database
code. Granted, should probably be using a boolean representation, but
I'm not sure if that's universally true. And if we find out later
that lower case is a problem, it won't be possible to change it
without messing with the rest of our users. I think it'd be best to
go with the spec.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-06-19 01:32:02 Re: WIP: rewrite numeric division
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2007-06-18 23:44:52 Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, revised patch