Implicit cast of literal in SQL statements - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Scott Royston
Subject Implicit cast of literal in SQL statements
Date
Msg-id 830E7B29-FB09-11D5-92C0-000393577144@yahoo.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: Implicit cast of literal in SQL statements  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-bugs
I've seen a few postings in multiple newsgroups saying that in 7.1.x and
up, literals in SQL statements are implicitly cast to strings.

For example in:
select distinct 'hello' from mytable;
the 'hello' is implicitly assumed to be 'hello'::text

However, in both 7.1.3, and a fresh build of 7.2b4 from cvs, (with all
regressions passing) I get:

mytest=# select distinct 'hello' from mytable;
ERROR:  Unable to identify an ordering operator '<' for type 'unknown'
         Use an explicit ordering operator or modify the query


an explicit 'hello'::text works fine.

I've spent a day looking through the code and can't really find any
obvious #define's or compile time flags that would be causing this
problem.
It looks like
Const *
make_const(Value *value)
{
...
                 case T_String:
                         val = DirectFunctionCall1(textin,
CStringGetDatum(strVal(value)));

                         typeid = UNKNOWNOID;    /* will be coerced
later */
                         typelen = -1;           /* variable len */
                         typebyval = false;
                         break;
...
}

does the damage, and it never gets 'coerced later', at least not before
transformDistinctClause(...) gets called, which is where the failure
happens (a few levels down).

does this really work for everybody else?  Can someone point me to a
compile flag I may be missing, or the code that actually does the
implicit cast?

thanks


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Serializable access giving wrong error messages?
Next
From: Thomas Lockhart
Date:
Subject: Re: Implicit cast of literal in SQL statements