From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: plpgsql: numeric assignment to an integer variable errors out |
Date: | 2010-02-27 03:29:30 |
Message-ID: | 201002270329.o1R3TUV26096@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Whatever happened to this patch?
>
> I think we bounced it on the grounds that it would represent a
> fundamental change in plpgsql behavior and break a whole lot of
> applications. People have been relying on plpgsql's coerce-via-IO
> assignment behavior for ten years. If you prefer coerce via
> cast conversion, you can get that by writing an explicit cast.
>
> Now it is true that a lot of the uses for that were subsumed when
> we added coerce-via-IO to the native cast capabilities; but I'm
> still quite scared of what this would break, and I don't see any
> field demand for a change.
Thanks. Sorry to be asking so many questions but it is the only way I
can be sure we have covered everything.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
PG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-02-27 03:38:49 | Re: ALTER ROLE/DATABASE RESET ALL versus security |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-27 03:27:16 | Re: plpgsql: numeric assignment to an integer variable errors out |