| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Cast of numeric() |
| Date: | 2000-05-15 13:56:00 |
| Message-ID: | 392001F0.F9758AE2@alumni.caltech.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> OK, this is making me rethink my suggestion in the book of using type()
> to do typecasts. Seems I should recommend CAST (val AS type), as wordy
> as it is, or maybe val::type?
CAST(val AS type) is defined in SQL92. istm that the others are
available at the whim of our current implementation, since when push
comes to shove we might have to choose between having one of our
non-standard mechanisms or having some other new features.
An example is SQL3 enumerated types, which use the double-colon
notation, but with value and type reversed from our syntax :(
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-05-15 14:11:04 | Re: AW: type conversion discussion |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-05-15 13:52:04 | Re: Cast of numeric() |