> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> >> I would love to say that this is related to change in casts, but that
> >> isn't the case.
>
> > Sure it is. The float=>int casts need to be made implicit, or
> we'll have
> > tons of problems like this.
>
> Well, yeah. That did not seem to bother anyone last spring, when we
> were discussing tightening the implicit-casting rules. Shall we
> abandon all that work and go back to "any available cast can be applied
> implicitly"?
>
> My vote is "tough, time to fix your SQL code".
Wasn't the resolution back then to "wait until beta and see who complains"?
Chris
