On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 12:26:45PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > if that weren't true then we wouldn't be arguing about whether > > COALESCE is wrong. > > Yeah, I am. When you have queries built based on which fields on a > QBE window are filled by a user, it's not hard to come up with a > clause like: > > AND (somedate < COALESCE(NULL, NULL) OR ...) > > We solved this by modifying our framework to pass down metadata about > the values in addition to the values themselves.
You need a *much* more invasive change to fix this. PG's type checker only looks one level deep when choosing what types to replace "unknown" with; what you you want is full type-inference as it's only that which will allow you to track back up the layers and assign consistent types to arbitrary expressions like the above. -- Sam http://samason.me.uk/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
