union of types in a different category

From: James Harper <james(dot)harper(at)bendigoit(dot)com(dot)au>
To: "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: union of types in a different category
Date: 2014-02-22 22:52:59
Message-ID: 6035A0D088A63A46850C3988ED045A4B6F3AFC86@BITCOM1.int.sbss.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

According to clause 3 on http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/typeconv-union-case.html regarding union type matching:

3. If the non-unknown inputs are not all of the same type category, fail.

So a query "SELECT 1 UNION SELECT 1.1" works because 1 and 1.1 are of the same category, and one type has an implicit cast to the other, but the query "SELECT '1' UNION SELECT 2" fails because '1' is a string literal and 2 is a number and so they are different categories. Right?

Is this an artificial limitation of postgres or is there an underlying technical reason for this behaviour? For my purposes it would be better if the restriction was removed and that the union would work as long as there was an implicit cast that allowed conversion of all fields to the same type.

MSSQL doesn't have this restriction and I'd prefer if I didn't have to rewrite these queries (or create a complete set of mssql compatible types in the same category) when porting applications.

Thanks

James

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Brent Wood 2014-02-22 23:12:26 Re: union of types in a different category
Previous Message alexandros_e 2014-02-22 18:11:50 pg_trgm extension and theory