| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dirk Elmendorf <delmendo(at)rackspace(dot)com>, bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Bug Repoprt- Casting Issues |
| Date: | 2000-06-03 22:44:59 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0006030225480.406-100000@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Tom Lane writes:
> If you'd prefer not to be concerned about the intermediate conversion
> to abstime, then use the date() notation. The :: notation is designed
> for controlling the type conversion exactly.
Wow, that is definitely confusing. I had always thought that `::' is
"cast, no matter how", and date() is "call the function date, which
happens to do the conversion". But now it seems that the supposed "cast"
syntax is really just a dumb function call whereas the function syntax
actually does more intelligent work behind the scenes.
I have a feeling these type conversion issues aren't going away for a long
time...
--
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 | Tom Lane | 2000-06-04 19:26:54 | Re: Bug Repoprt- Casting Issues |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-06-02 23:48:23 | Re: uniqueness not always correct |