Re: Trying to understand pg_get_expr()

From: Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Trying to understand pg_get_expr()
Date: 2026-03-17 21:12:12
Message-ID: CAB-JLwZ0G43CCePwT0UOZddUV5pi5UWA4uSKi2hk+bzEvZJdKA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Em ter., 17 de mar. de 2026 às 18:04, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> escreveu:

> PG's parser automatically attributes type integer to an unadorned
> integer literal, so no cast is necessary there, and pg_get_expr
> doesn't add one. But an unadorned string like 'test' does not
> have a determinate type (well, it has type "unknown", but that
> is an implementation artifact). We emit a cast construct to show
> what type the constant was resolved as.
>
> The bigger picture here is that pg_get_expr relies on the same
> code that is used for purposes like dumping views. We want the
> output to be such that subexpressions of a view will certainly
> be parsed as the same type they were interpreted as before

Thanks Tom

If your fields default to a string, then all them will have to cast back to
its type when calling that function.

CREATE TABLE default_test (
id integer,
fld_1 varchar DEFAULT 'test',
fld_2 integer DEFAULT '150'::text::integer,
fld_3 date DEFAULT '2026/05/01',
fld_4 timestamp DEFAULT '2026/05/01',
fld_5 text DEFAULT 'x',
fld_6 boolean DEFAULT 'on'::text::boolean,
fld_7 int4range DEFAULT '[1,2)',
fld_8 char DEFAULT '1'
);

regards
Marcos

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rob Sargent 2026-03-18 00:38:11 Re: help debugging an issue with selectivity
Previous Message Tom Lane 2026-03-17 21:04:50 Re: Trying to understand pg_get_expr()