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. I'm having a hard time seeing a bright line between
those two cases. Remember, I'm not proposing that we try to guess
between more alternatives than we're already trying to guess between -
only that we do something other than fail outright in situations where
we currently do.
The changes we made in 8.3 broke a bunch of cases that were actually
ambiguous. That was painful, but probably for the best. What wasn't,
in my opinion, for the best was that we also broke a lot of cases -
including this one - that were by no means ambiguous. In fact, I
believe that every place that I had to fix my application code
actually fell into the latter category: there was no actual ambiguity,
but I had to go back and insert a cast anyway.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
