Re: Procedure for feature requests?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Procedure for feature requests?
Date: 2009-10-03 20:14:21
Message-ID: 8524.1254600861@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> writes:
> On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 12:48:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think the reason CREATE CAST exists is exactly that the cast mechanism
>> *isn't* intended to provide conversions between any arbitrary pair of
>> datatypes. It's only intended to provide conversions in those cases
>> where the conversion semantics are obvious to some degree or other.

> Yup, but the decision to officially bless some code as being a cast
> rather than "just" a function seems very arbitrary, I think this is why
> I don't understand its purpose.

It's useful when the conversion semantics are sufficiently natural that
you want the conversion to be applied implicitly. I agree that the
explicit CAST syntax hasn't got very much to recommend it over a
function call. That part you can blame on the SQL committee ;-) ...
the historical PostQUEL syntax for this was exactly a function call,
and you can still write it that way if you choose.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-10-03 20:39:40 Re: Embarassing GROUP question
Previous Message Sam Mason 2009-10-03 17:31:26 Re: Embarassing GROUP question