Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Am Montag, 2. April 2007 18:41 schrieb Tom Lane: > > Certainly they'd all be explicit-only. ?From a technical perspective > > there's no need to do the two things at the same time; I'm just opining > > that we could sell it easier if we did them together. ?If we just do > > this part, what users will see is that we broke their queries for what > > to them will appear to be no particular gain. > > I find this method of selling features very unusual. The two issues under > consideration have nothing in common except that they have "cast" in their > subject line. The reduction of implicit casts to text has to stand on its > own: the purpose is to produce more reliable expression behavior. Those > whose queries this would break are not helped by having other casts available > without work; they'd still have to do manual fixups. So what we'd have > is "Sorry, casting int to text implicitly doesn't work anymore, but instead > you can cast $othertype to text explicitly." How does that help anyone?
I assumed the issue was that there might not be explicit casts for every case were were now disallowing. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
