Re: Which casts should be implicit - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Christopher Kings-Lynne
Subject Re: Which casts should be implicit
Date
Msg-id GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOMEFOCDAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Which casts should be implicit  ("Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>)
List pgsql-hackers
> > date -> timestamp[tz]:  I'm suspicious of this one, but it's hard to
> > explain.  The definition to fill in the time component with zeros is
> > reasonable, but it's not the same thing as casting integers to floats
> > because dates really represent a time span of 24 hours and timestamps an
> > indivisible point in time.  I suggest making this non-implicit, for
> > conformance with SQL and for general consistency between the date/time
> > types.
>
> Althought I'm sure there's _loads_ of people using this conversion,
> including me in various random places in the codebase.

Actually, if inserting counts as an explicit conversion, then maybe not...



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne"
Date:
Subject: Re: Which casts should be implicit
Next
From: Joe Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal: anonymous composite types for Table Functions