Re: Implicit casts to text

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Montag, 2. April 2007 18:41 schrieb Tom Lane:
> > Certainly they'd all be explicit-only. ?From a technical perspective
> > there's no need to do the two things at the same time; I'm just opining
> > that we could sell it easier if we did them together. ?If we just do
> > this part, what users will see is that we broke their queries for what
> > to them will appear to be no particular gain.
> 
> I find this method of selling features very unusual.  The two issues under 
> consideration have nothing in common except that they have "cast" in their 
> subject line.  The reduction of implicit casts to text has to stand on its 
> own: the purpose is to produce more reliable expression behavior.  Those 
> whose queries this would break are not helped by having other casts available 
> without work; they'd still have to do manual fixups.  So what we'd have 
> is "Sorry, casting int to text implicitly doesn't work anymore, but instead 
> you can cast $othertype to text explicitly."  How does that help anyone?

I assumed the issue was that there might not be explicit casts for every
case were were now disallowing.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>          http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://www.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +