"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> napisał(a):
> asia123321@op.pl writes:
> > I am trying to use bit(1) datatype with existing application that used int datatype before.
> > So I tried to create implicit cast that will allow me not to make code modifications and wanted to create implicit
cast"int2bit", but it turned out that there is already system cast.
> > Unfortunately this cast is explicit and I need to make it implicit (it can be made implicit only for one schema).
>
> You will likely find that this is a really bad idea. Implicit
> casts between fundamentally different datatypes are *dangerous*.
> They tend to result in either surprising query behaviors or unexpected
> "operator is not unique" failures. Fixing the app would be a lot safer
> in the long run.
>
> > My question is that if there is any official way to overwrite this attribute
>
> No. If you're intent on breaking things, hacking the catalog is what to do.
>
> ???regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
> > > Thank you for your reply. I agree that this in not the right way so my question was also if there is any
alternativeway to do it, to make bit(1) behave similarly to integer so that I do not need to change hundreds of lines
ofcode to insert e.g. B'1' instead of 1 like it is now in my application (btw it is quite heavy existing application
whichis migrating to PostgreSQL). It is quite natural to insert 0 or 1 into the bit values so why I cannot do it simply
orthere is other way I can achieve my goal? IMHO that this specific cast SHOULD be implicit and it surely would not
resultin anything more strange than simplyfing people's lifes ;-)
Thank you.
Joanna