Re: Adding time to DATE type

Is this something worth addressing?

> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> >> Can someone give me a TODO summary for this issue?
> 
> > * make 'text' constants default to text type (not unknown)
> 
> > (I think not everyone's completely convinced on this issue, but I don't
> > recall anyone being firmly opposed to it.)
> 
> It would be a mistake to eliminate the distinction between unknown and
> text.  See for example my just-posted response to John Cochran on
> pgsql-general about why 'BOULEVARD'::text behaves differently from
> 'BOULEVARD'::char.  If string literals are immediately assigned type
> text then we will have serious problems with char(n) fields.
> 
> I think it's fine to assign string literals a type of 'unknown'
> initially.  What we need to do is add a phase of type resolution that
> considers treating them as text, but only after the existing logic fails
> to deduce a type.
> 
> (BTW it might be better to treat string literals as defaulting to char(n)
> instead of text, allowing the normal promotion rules to replace char(n)
> with text if necessary.  Not sure if that would make things more or less
> confusing for operations that intermix fixed- and variable-width char
> types.)
> 
>             regards, tom lane
> 


--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026