Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Oh, I'd forgotten that worked that way. Frankly, that makes me quite a
>> bit more concerned about this proposal than I was before. I do *not*
>> want to re-introduce silent cross-category casts to text, not even if
>> there's no other way to match the function/operator. I think that hack
>> was/is tolerable for actual assignment to a table column, because there
>> is very little chance that the semantics of such an assignment will come
>> out differently than the user expected.
> Well, I think that when there is only one LPAD function, there is also
> very little chance that the results will come out differently than the
> user expected.
[ shrug... ] I'm having a hard time resisting the temptation to point
out that there are two. The real point here though is that the proposed
behavior change will affect all functions, not only the cases where you
think there is only one sane behavior. And features such as search paths
and default parameters frequently mean that there are more potential
matches than the user thought of while writing the query.
In the end, SQL is a fairly strongly typed language, especially in our
manifestation of it. I don't think we should give that up, especially
not for benefits as dubious as not having to write a cast to make it
clear that yes you really do want a timestamp to be treated as text.
IMO, saving people from the errors that inevitably arise from that sort
of sloppy thinking is a benefit, not a cost, of having a typed language.
regards, tom lane
