From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
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 15:40:07 |
Message-ID: | 39201A57.CBD37021@alumni.caltech.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > 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?
Actually, I'm not sure a change *was* put in! I haven't yet looked,
but it may be that this is a result of my adding a "number to text"
conversion function. The type conversion code took that and ran!
Remember that for v7.0, "length" for character strings should be
"char_length". Maybe some of the trouble here is from leftover
attempts to get strings and other "length" types to play together in
an underspecified query.
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-05-15 15:50:25 | Re: Casting, again |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-05-15 15:17:25 | Re: Casting, again |