On 19/02/2025 13:50, Chris BSomething wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 at 10:12, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> I think such a rule would be pretty dangerous, even if we could
> implement it easily. As an example, if you entered something you
> meant as a timestamp, but you fat-fingered the punctuation or
> something, it'd likely fall back to being considered just "text",
>
>
> I don't get that, I thought timestamps have to be preceded by "TIMESTAMP".
The SQL standard requires you to do that, but PostgreSQL is a bit more
lax about it (and in my humble opinion, thankfully so). If you did
prefix your literals with their type, you wouldn't be having these
problems in the first place. The problem stems from postgres treating
your unmarked literal as "unknown" and then trying to figure out what
the heck it is.
--
Vik Fearing
