| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Dilger <pgsql(at)markdilger(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: TODO: Fix CREATE CAST on DOMAINs |
| Date: | 2006-09-20 20:48:38 |
| Message-ID: | 20060920204838.GG7888@svana.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 10:26:55AM -0700, Mark Dilger wrote:
> I have thought about this some more. I think these are indeed SAFE. The
> distinction between SAFE and IMPLICIT should not, I think, be whether the
> storage type is identical, but rather whether there is any possible loss of
> precision, range, accuracy, etc., or whether there is any change in the
> fundamental interpretation of the data when cast from the source to
> destination type.
My question is whether there should be any implicit casts that are not
safe. Your example int8 -> float8 being implicit is I think an error
and we should wonder why that cast implicit now anyway.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-20 20:49:01 | Re: [PATCHES] Include file in regress.c |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-20 20:26:30 | Re: [HACKERS] Incrementally Updated Backup |