Re:

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re:
Date: 2002-09-13 04:46:00
Message-ID: 15484.1031892360@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>> I would love to say that this is related to change in casts, but that
>> isn't the case.

> 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"?

My vote is "tough, time to fix your SQL code".

regards, tom lane

In response to

  • Re: at 2002-09-12 22:08:53 from Peter Eisentraut

Responses

  • Re: at 2002-09-13 04:56:36 from Christopher Kings-Lynne
  • Re: at 2002-09-13 04:59:59 from Alvaro Herrera
  • Re: at 2002-09-13 06:58:00 from Jeff Davis
  • Re: at 2002-09-13 22:37:16 from Peter Eisentraut

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2002-09-13 04:56:19 Re: DROP COLUMN misbehaviour with multiple inheritance
Previous Message Philip Warner 2002-09-13 04:18:17 Re: OPAQUE and 7.2-7.3 upgrade