Re: Fallback behavior for "UNKNOWN" types -- proposed change

From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fallback behavior for "UNKNOWN" types -- proposed change
Date: 2000-10-25 03:22:06
Message-ID: 39F651DE.D278815@alumni.caltech.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> I would suggest a slightly different rule, but maybe it comes out at the
> same place in the end: if we can't find a unique match treating UNKNOWN
> the way we do now, try again assuming it is TEXT (or at least string
> category). As you say, this is reasonable given that the original
> literal looked like a string.

Yeah, it is the same thing in the end, since the *only* place I've
changed in the code is the block which used to bail out when seeing a
"category conflict".

I assumed you would have an opinion ;) If anyone else has concerns
before seeing the effects of the change in the development tree, speak
up! Of course, if we see troubles after commit, things can change or
revert...

Oh, and UNKNOWNNUMERIC sounds like a plausible concept too.

- Thomas

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hiroshi Inoue 2000-10-25 06:40:49 Re: AW: BLERe: AW: AW: relation ### modified whilein use
Previous Message Larry Rosenman 2000-10-25 01:17:22 Re: Re: PL/Perl compilation error