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_using -
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
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 to do with your changes.
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.
regards,
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
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:
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
