On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 06:07, Richard Huxton wrote:
> PG's parser will assume an explicit number is an int4 - if you need an int8
> etc you'll need to cast it, yes.
Or enclose the integer literal in single quotes.
> You should find plenty of discussion of why in the archives, but the short
> rea
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 06:07, Richard Huxton wrote:
>> You should find plenty of discussion of why in the archives, but the short
>> reason is that PG's type structure is quite flexible which means it can't
>> afford to make too many assumptions.
> Well,
On Friday 05 September 2003 19:20, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 06:07, Richard Huxton wrote:
> > PG's parser will assume an explicit number is an int4 - if you need an
> > int8 etc you'll need to cast it, yes.
>
> Or enclose the integer literal in single quotes.
>
> > You should find
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 09:39, Jonathan Bartlett wrote:
> > I think I have found out why.. I have a where clause on a ID field but it
> > seems like I need to cast this integer to the same integer as the field is
> > defined in the table, else it will do a tablescan.
>
> Yes, this is correct
>
> >
> I think I have found out why.. I have a where clause on a ID field but it
> seems like I need to cast this integer to the same integer as the field is
> defined in the table, else it will do a tablescan.
Yes, this is correct
> Is this assumtion correct? And if it is, do I then need to change al
