Re: Timestamp operator error

Tom,

> Emergency fix?  This operator didn't behave reasonably in 7.1 either
> (at least not by my definition of reasonable).  What exactly would
> you have us do?

No, not you!  For me to fix.  You're a volunteer, as far as I'minvolved.  I just wanted suggestions for a quick fix.
WhenI foundthe other issues, it was more reasonable to search-and-replace onvalues ("interval"() for interval() was
easy). I can't figure out howto pattern match on interval + timestamp, especially with variablesinvolved.
 

Is there a way, for example, that I could disallow the TIMESTAMP -->DATE implicit conversion in my code?  That would
breakall thefunctions and views with this problem, and then I could identify them.
 

> Yah.  Offhand I'd argue that no information-discarding conversion
> should be implicitly invokable.  date->timestamp is fine;
> timestamp->date should require an explicit cast.  I've already
>  proposed
> that we add a flag to pg_proc to distinguish implicit from explicit
> conversion operations, and no one complained.  But we have not yet
> begun to argue about exactly which conversions should be allowed
> implicitly...

Hey, feel free to take up the argument here, too!  It is a SQL topic,after all ...

-Josh

______AGLIO DATABASE SOLUTIONS___________________________                                      Josh Berkus Complete
informationtechnology      josh@agliodbs.com  and data management solutions       (415) 565-7293 for law firms, small
businesses       fax 621-2533   and non-profit organizations.      San Francisco