Re: Casts
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Casts |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 14681.1155088861@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Casts (stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Casts
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes: > It seems odd to me that implicit casts are checked for when you call a > function but not when you're implicitly calling a function via a cast. As a > result there are a *lot* of redundant casts in our catalog, essentially n! > casts for a domain with n types in it. So for example there are 138 casts > between the various numeric data types including every possible pairing of > char, int2, int4, int8, float4, float8, and numeric. This is intentional. If you explicitly cast type foo to type bar there should not be any question about what function will be invoked. The cost is a few more rows in pg_cast ... so what? Adding rows to pg_cast is not the most painful part of making a new datatype. As for "the parser ought to be able to find two-step cast pathways", no thanks. The increase in search time and the decrease in predictability are both undesirable. > There has been some fear expressed in the past that too many implicit casts > create surprising side effects. Not "some fear" ... we have seen people badly burned, time and time again, by the ill-considered implicit casts that are already in there. IMHO we need fewer implicit casts, not more. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: