"Tom Lane" <[email protected]> napisał(a): > [email protected] writes: > > I am trying to use bit(1) datatype with existing application that used int > > datatype before. > > So I tried to create implicit cast that will allow me not to make code > > modifications and wanted to create implicit cast "int2bit", but it turned > > out that there is already system cast. > > Unfortunately this cast is explicit and I need to make it implicit (it can > > be made implicit only for one schema). > > You will likely find that this is a really bad idea. Implicit > casts between fundamentally different datatypes are *dangerous*. > They tend to result in either surprising query behaviors or unexpected > "operator is not unique" failures. Fixing the app would be a lot safer > in the long run. > > > My question is that if there is any official way to overwrite this attribute > > No. If you're intent on breaking things, hacking the catalog is what to do. > > ???regards, tom lane > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list ([email protected]) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
> > > Thank you for your reply. I agree that this in not the right way so my > > > question was also if there is any alternative way to do it, to make > > > bit(1) behave similarly to integer so that I do not need to change > > > hundreds of lines of code to insert e.g. B'1' instead of 1 like it is now > > > in my application (btw it is quite heavy existing application which is > > > migrating to PostgreSQL). It is quite natural to insert 0 or 1 into the > > > bit values so why I cannot do it simply or there is other way I can > > > achieve my goal? IMHO that this specific cast SHOULD be implicit and it > > > surely would not result in anything more strange than simplyfing people's > > > lifes ;-) Thank you. Joanna -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
