Re: Range Types, constructors, and the type system
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Range Types, constructors, and the type system |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1309878662.3012.21.camel@jdavis обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Range Types, constructors, and the type system (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Range Types, constructors, and the type system
Re: Range Types, constructors, and the type system |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 10:06 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > But if it's actually better, we should do it. If an intermediate type > > seems to be problematic, or if people think it's strange to require > > casting, then I think this is reasonable. > > I don't understand how the bespoke syntax avoids the need for a cast? It doesn't, it just avoids the need for an intermediate type. What I meant was that it might be strange to require a cast on the result of a function call, because we don't really do that anywhere else. Florian pointed out that it's common to require casting the ARRAY[] constructor, so that has more of a precedent. I'm not really sure how much that matters. I'm OK with the intermediate type, but Florian seems skeptical of that idea. Regards,Jeff Davis
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: