En Fri, 13 Sep 2002 00:46:00 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Sure it is. The float=>int casts need to be made implicit, or we'll have > > tons of problems like this. > > Well, yeah. That did not seem to bother anyone last spring, when we > were discussing tightening the implicit-casting rules. Shall we > abandon all that work and go back to "any available cast can be applied > implicitly"? Implicit float to int loses precision, so it shouldn't be implicit, should it? Maybe the solution is to make 7.3 pg_dump smart enough to add explicit casts where default values demand them... Is this possible? Are there other cases where tightening implicit casts is going to bit users? -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]atentus.com>) El sentido de las cosas no viene de las cosas, sino de las inteligencias que las aplican a sus problemas diarios en busca del progreso. (Ernesto Hernández-Novich) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
