Re: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/typeconv-union-case.html

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "priyadarshan(dot)dalvi(at)hotmail(dot)com" <priyadarshan(dot)dalvi(at)hotmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/typeconv-union-case.html
Date: 2020-05-12 19:32:44
Message-ID: CAKFQuwYnYK8SfZqxAR-YM2Feu6pQuUjMbTxpFLiDd4gE3ZikGQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs

On Tuesday, May 12, 2020, PG Doc comments form <noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org>
wrote:

> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/typeconv-union-case.html
> Description:
>
> I think it should be CAST instead of CASE.
>

Why? There no “process” needed to perform type conversion using cast.

David J.

In response to

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2020-05-12 21:40:14 Re: The suggestion of reducing autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay should be documented
Previous Message PG Doc comments form 2020-05-12 19:12:28 https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/typeconv-union-case.html