On 8/27/12 5:19 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
Tom Lane replied:
>>>Come on, really? Note that the above example works without casts if
>>>you use int*or* bigint*or* numeric, but not smallint. That could be
>>>fixed by causing sufficiently-small integers to lex as smallints,
>>Is there any general interest in adjusting smallint casting?
...
>It's conceivable that a change in the lexer behavior combined with a
>massive reorganization of the integer-related operators would bring us
>to a nicer place than where we are now. But it'd be a lot of work for
>dubious reward, and it would almost certainly generate a pile of
>application compatibility problems.
Okay, but what about a more targeted solution to the original
poster's problem? That seems doable without causing major
breakage elsewhere....
FWIW, this causes problems for me at work as well.
For the case of
const op const
instead of trying to small-cast the 2 constants, would it be possible to
large-cast them, perform the operation, and then re-cast the results of the
operation? ISTM that would solve the operator issue (ie, the case of
20000+20000).
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect j...@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
