On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I think we're talking past each other here. It is unarguable that
> (as long as there's only one LPAD function) there is only one possible
> non-error interpretation. However, you are ignoring the real
> possibility that perhaps the situation *is* an error: maybe the user
> typed the wrong function name, or the wrong field name, or simply
> misunderstands what the function is meant to do. If it is a typo then
> complaining about the datatype mismatch is a good thing to do. If it
> is intentional, then requiring an explicit cast makes it clear to all
> concerned that what's wanted is to convert the non-string value to a
> string and then perform a string-ish operation on it.
Sure, in theory that is true, but no other RDBMS that I know about
feels a need to error out in that situation. I'm skeptical of the
contention that we're smarter than everyone else. Moreover, if
implicit casts to string are a categorically bad idea, why do we allow
them (via various evil hacks) for quote_literal(), concat(), and ||?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
