Bruce Momjian wrote:
Is this a TODO?
No, we're long past this point. We've dropped 'convert ... using' entirely.
The question is whether re-adding it should be a TODO.
One of the reasons we dropped it was that the spec didn't seem to make
sense. So if there's a proposal
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> No, we're long past this point. We've dropped 'convert ... using' entirely.
> The question is whether re-adding it should be a TODO.
Not unless someone wants it and can explain the spec convincingly.
reg
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >
> >> Tom Lane wrote:
> >>
> >>> OTOH we may be talking at cross-purposes --- on looking into gram.y
> >>> I see that this syntax is transformed to a call of convert_using(),
> >>> which may mean it has nothing
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
OTOH we may be talking at cross-purposes --- on looking into gram.y
I see that this syntax is transformed to a call of convert_using(),
which may mean it has nothing to do with your changes.
No, I changed c
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > OTOH we may be talking at cross-purposes --- on looking into gram.y
> > I see that this syntax is transformed to a call of convert_using(),
> > which may mean it has nothing to do with your changes.
> >
> >
> >
>
> No, I changed convert_usi
Tom Lane wrote:
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
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
Tom Lane wrote:
OTOH we may be talking at cross-purposes --- on looking into gram.y
I see that this syntax is transformed to a call of convert_using(),
which may mean it has nothing to do with your changes.
No, I changed convert_using -
http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi
Tom Lane wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Dunstan) writes:
Log Message:
The two argument form of convert() is gone,
Um ... so that means CONVERT(c USING y) now fails entirely? That might
be going a bit far. If we do want to get rid of that syntax then I'm
noting a lack of parser ch
