| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>, "'PostgreSQL-development'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: AW: type conversion discussion |
| Date: | 2000-05-19 03:43:28 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0005190413370.349-100000@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes:
> (The SQL guys probably did not foresee people implementing NUMERIC
> with wider range than FLOAT ;-) ... but the fact that we did so
> doesn't give us license to ignore that aspect of the spec ...)
I think that must have been it, why else would they (implicitly) rank
floats above numerics. If we submit to that notion, then I agree with the
promotion tree you suggested.
The problem remains that upward casting will not be guaranteed to work all
the time, which is something that needs to be addressed; in potentially
unpretty ways, because not every casting decision is necessarily a linear
ladder-climb, it might be affected by other casting decisions going on in
parallel. (The workaround here could be to convert numerics that are wider
than floats to `infinity' :-)
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-05-19 03:43:53 | Re: type conversion discussion |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-05-19 03:43:02 | Re: OO Patch |