On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> I am not too sure that the distinction between implicit casts and >> assignment casts is all that useful; > > We've been there and done that; it doesn't work. The current scheme > was invented specifically because a two-way design didn't work. > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-09/msg00900.php
Well, sure, if you remove the distinction between implicit and assignment casts *without doing anything else*, it's not going to work. But that's not what I proposed. And as Peter said in one of his responses: "Finally, I believe this paints over the real problems, namely the inadequate and hardcoded type category preferences and the inadequate handling of numerical constants. Both of these issues have had adequate approaches proposed in the past and would solve this an a number of other issues." I agree. We pride ourselves on having an extensible database product, but our current type system is fairly hostile to extension. The typispreferred stuff works OK for deciding between two types (which is not coincidentally the number of distinct values that can be represented by a Boolean column) but after that it breaks down pretty quickly. If you're adding specialized types to represent zoo animals or constellations or six-dimensional polyhedra, it works OK, but if you try to add addition stringy or numbery things, there are problems. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
