[HACKERS] It'd be better if there were not an implicit cast from int8 to text...
Hm, I suppose this kluge in gram.y for substr_list isn't necessary any more? Don't really see a downside to leaving it, just thought I would mention it since I noticed the comment is outdated. | a_expr substr_for { /* * Since there are no cases where this syntax allows * a textual FOR value, we forcibly cast the argument * to int4. This is a kluge to avoid surprising results * when the argument is, say, int8. It'd be better if * there were not an implicit cast from int8 to text ... */ A_Const *n = makeNode(A_Const); n-val.type = T_Integer; n-val.val.ival = 1; $$ = list_make3($1, (Node *) n, makeTypeCast($2, SystemTypeName(int4))); } -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] It'd be better if there were not an implicit cast from int8 to text...
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hm, I suppose this kluge in gram.y for substr_list isn't necessary any more? It's still necessary, because if you write select substring('1234' for '3'); you should get 123, but what you will get without the cast is 3 because the preferred match will be to substring(text,text). Also, the original example was from someone who had tried to use a bigint column for the second parameter. That case would start to draw ERROR: function pg_catalog.substring(unknown, bigint) does not exist which doesn't seem helpful, when we know perfectly well that the only functions this syntax should match take int4. Probably the comment should be fixed. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match