Re: type conversion discussion

Tom Lane writes:

> > The fact that an oid is also a number should be an implementation detail.
>
> Could be. A version or three ago you actually did have to write
>
> ... where oid = 1234::oid
>
> if you wanted to refer to a specific row by OID. However, while it
> might be logically purer to insist that OIDs are not numbers, it's just
> too damn handy to be laxer about the distinction.

Definitely. But wouldn't three (or six) extra `=' operators be the road of
least resistance or clearest separation? Not sure.

> I doubt that ordinary users touch OIDs at all, and the ones who do
> probably know what they're doing.

Certain elements around these parts actively advocate using oids for keys
or even unsigned numbers (*shudder*). I wouldn't be so sure about this
statement at all.

One thing to keep in mind in any case is that oids might not be int4-like
forever, eventually we might want int8, or the unsigned version thereof.

--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden