| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Casting, again |
| Date: | 2000-05-15 15:17:25 |
| Message-ID: | 27087.958403845@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
> btw, what were we hoping to accomplish with length(755)? Why isn't "3"
> a good answer??
If you believe it should have an answer at all, then 3 is probably
the right answer. But it used to be rejected, and I tend to think
that that's the right behavior. I don't like the idea of silent
conversions from numeric-looking things into text. It might be
merely amusing in this case but in other cases it could be very
confusing if not outright wrong. Why was this change put in?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-05-15 15:40:07 | Re: Casting, again |
| Previous Message | Benjamin Adida | 2000-05-15 15:12:48 | Re: Proposal: replace no-overwrite with Berkeley DB |