2009/5/28 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> writes: >> I propose for types with typmod -1 early casting - etc casting to >> target type on planner level. We cannot use this method for defined >> typmod, because we would to raise exception for following situation: > > What existing coding habits will this break?
I don't know about any. Actually we don't have "variant datatype", so this should not impact on existing applications. People have long been > accustomed to use plpgsql for end-runs around SQL casting behavior, > so I'm not really convinced by the idea that "make it more like SQL" > is automatically a good thing. > for typmod others then -1 we should to use IO cast - but we should to check, if it's one from known casts. without "strict mode" this should be fully compatible (if we could to expect so our casting functions are correct). > Also, it seems bizarre and inconsistent that it would work one way > for variables with a typmod and an entirely different way for those > without. How will you explain that to users who never heard of a > typmod? > Now I thing so this should be solved well too. We need two kind of casting functions - what we have - CASTs with INOUT and CASTs with functions. For variables with typmod we have to call CASTs with INOUT. > regards, tom lane > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
