From: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "postgres hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: some problem with casting unknown to smallint |
Date: | 2008-10-29 12:52:41 |
Message-ID: | 162867790810290552l7c18613n8ae67c0413a18a8c@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2008/10/29 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I understand. So every smallint should be call with casting?
>
> A long time ago we tried to make small integer literals be interpreted
> as int2 initially, instead of int4, and the attempt failed rather
> spectacularly. (It broke most of the regression tests, IIRC, in ways
> that suggested that many client applications would have problems too.)
> Perhaps PG's type system has matured to the point where it'd work better
> now, but I'm not really interested in trying it. I don't see very much
> point in declaring functions to take smallint rather than int anyway...
I found this question on one czech it specialized site. It's mostly
beginner's problem.
regards
Pavel Stehule
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2008-10-29 13:05:21 | Re: Decreasing WAL size effects |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-10-29 12:44:07 | Re: some problem with casting unknown to smallint |