=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zZWYgxaBpbcOhbmVr?= <josef.simanek@gmail.com> writes:
> po 27. 12. 2021 v 16:10 odesílatel Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> napsal:
>> Hmm, interesting side-effect: we no longer assign a column name in this
>> case so it remains "?column?", just like it happens for other datatypes.
>> This seems okay to me. (This is also what causes the changes in the
>> isolationtester expected output.)
> This seems to be caused by a change of makeBoolAConst function. I was
> thinking for a while about the potential backward compatibility
> problems, but I wasn't able to find any.
In theory this could break some application that's expecting
"SELECT ..., true, ..." to return a column name of "bool"
rather than "?column?". The risk of that being a problem in
practice seems rather low, though. It certainly seems like a
wart that you get a type name for that but not for other sorts
of literals such as 1 or 2.4, so I'm okay with the change.
regards, tom lane