union of types in a different category
От | James Harper |
---|---|
Тема | union of types in a different category |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6035A0D088A63A46850C3988ED045A4B6F3AFC86@BITCOM1.int.sbss.com.au обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: union of types in a different category
Re: union of types in a different category |
Список | pgsql-general |
According to clause 3 on http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/typeconv-union-case.html regarding union type matching: 3. If the non-unknown inputs are not all of the same type category, fail. So a query "SELECT 1 UNION SELECT 1.1" works because 1 and 1.1 are of the same category, and one type has an implicit castto the other, but the query "SELECT '1' UNION SELECT 2" fails because '1' is a string literal and 2 is a number and sothey are different categories. Right? Is this an artificial limitation of postgres or is there an underlying technical reason for this behaviour? For my purposesit would be better if the restriction was removed and that the union would work as long as there was an implicitcast that allowed conversion of all fields to the same type. MSSQL doesn't have this restriction and I'd prefer if I didn't have to rewrite these queries (or create a complete set ofmssql compatible types in the same category) when porting applications. Thanks James
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: