Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We can revert that if necessary. It will open up a hole, though. Take 
> your pick - spec compliance or validly coded data.

I would rather take CONVERT USING out altogether, than have an
implementation that so clearly disregards the spec as to not even return
a compatible datatype.

Other than the fact that it's supposed to return varchar, the spec's
description of what it converts to what seems about as clear as mud.
I suspect however that it can't really be implemented properly without
support for per-value (or at least per-column) encoding, which is
something we're nowhere near having.  Maybe we *should* take it out
instead of using spec-defined syntax for a behavior that we made up
out of whole cloth.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to