From: | Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: boolean <=> text explicit casts |
Date: | 2007-06-18 23:52:42 |
Message-ID: | 5AE05AC8-BFEA-45ED-9E9F-C1A6D0952078@decibel.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On May 30, 2007, at 3:40 PM, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-30-05 at 21:23 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I'm not sure what your rationale was for creating lower-case words
>> instead of upper case, except for it looks nicer. Is there a
>> technical
>> reason?
>
> There's no real technical reason: the standard says upper-case, but
> PG's
> general philosophy of case folding would suggest folding to lower-
> case.
> If we were compliant with the spec's case folding requirements then
> emitting uppercase would be the clear choice, but since we aren't, I
> don't have strong feelings either way.
Sorry for the late reply...
I'm worried that this would make us incompatible with cross-database
code. Granted, should probably be using a boolean representation, but
I'm not sure if that's universally true. And if we find out later
that lower case is a problem, it won't be possible to change it
without messing with the rest of our users. I think it'd be best to
go with the spec.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-19 01:32:02 | Re: WIP: rewrite numeric division |
Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2007-06-18 23:44:52 | Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, revised patch |