Thread: plpgsql doesn't coerce boolean expressions to boolean
Following up this gripe http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2003-09/msg00044.php I've realized that plpgsql just assumes that the test expression of an IF, WHILE, or EXIT statement is a boolean expression. It doesn't take any measures to ensure this is the case or convert the value if it's not the case. This seems pretty bogus to me. However ... with the code as it stands, for pass-by-reference datatypes any nonnull value will appear TRUE, while for pass-by-value datatypes any nonzero value will appear TRUE. I fear that people may actually be depending on these behaviors, particularly the latter one which is pretty reasonable if you're accustomed to C. So while I'd like to throw an error if the argument isn't boolean, I'm afraid of breaking people's function definitions. Here are some possible responses, roughly in order of difficulty to implement: 1. Leave well enough alone (and perhaps document the behavior). 2. Throw an error if the expression doesn't return boolean. 3. Try to convert nonbooleans to boolean using plpgsql's usual method for cross-type coercion, ie run the type's outputproc to get a string and feed it to bool's input proc. (This seems unlikely to avoid throwing an error in very manycases, but it'd be the most consistent with other parts of plpgsql.) 4. Use the parser's coerce_to_boolean procedure, so that nonbooleans will be accepted in exactly the same cases where they'dbe accepted in a boolean-requiring SQL construct (such as CASE). (By default, none are, so this isn't really differentfrom #2. But people could create casts to boolean to override this behavior in a controlled fashion.) Any opinions about what to do? regards, tom lane
I'm using sequences and currval() to retrieve the last inserted row in a table. If currval() is undefined, as it is when a connection is made, then I know no rows were inserted in that table and can take a different action. This is problematic when using a connection pooling library, as the value of currval() for any given sequence could possibly be set from a previous "connection". One (theoretical) workaround would be to issue some sort of command to the back-end database to wipe all values of currval() when a "new" connection is made. I've done some digging in the system tables and source code, and can't find an obvious solution. Perhaps one you you gurus can suggest a SQL statement to do such a thing. Alternately, if there is a better way to retrieve the last inserted row for any given table, I'd be very grateful for the tip. It would need to be independent of the connection history, and undefined if there has not been a row inserted to the table during a definable interval of time (drop anchor when the "connection" begins, raise anchor when the "connection" ends), and be independant of the other connections inserting rows to the same table. Any idaeas? CG __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Chris Gamache <cgg007@yahoo.com> writes:
> One (theoretical) workaround would be to issue some sort of command to the
> back-end database to wipe all values of currval() when a "new" connection is
> made. I've done some digging in the system tables and source code, and can't
> find an obvious solution.
The state involved is in a linked list kept by commands/sequence.c.
Such a command would not be difficult to implement, if you could get
agreement on the syntax to use.
regards, tom lane
Chris Gamache wrote: > I'm using sequences and currval() to retrieve the last inserted row in a table. > > > If currval() is undefined, as it is when a connection is made, then I know no > rows were inserted in that table and can take a different action. This is > problematic when using a connection pooling library, as the value of currval() > for any given sequence could possibly be set from a previous "connection". > > One (theoretical) workaround would be to issue some sort of command to the > back-end database to wipe all values of currval() when a "new" connection is > made. I've done some digging in the system tables and source code, and can't > find an obvious solution. Perhaps one you you gurus can suggest a SQL statement > to do such a thing. > > Alternately, if there is a better way to retrieve the last inserted row for any > given table, I'd be very grateful for the tip. It would need to be independent > of the connection history, and undefined if there has not been a row inserted > to the table during a definable interval of time (drop anchor when the > "connection" begins, raise anchor when the "connection" ends), and be > independant of the other connections inserting rows to the same table. I don't know how you could have an application that doesn't know if it has issued a nextval() in the current connection. Unless you can explain that, we have no intention of playing tricks with currval() for connection pooling. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I don't know how you could have an application that doesn't know if it > has issued a nextval() in the current connection. Unless you can explain > that, we have no intention of playing tricks with currval() for > connection pooling. Actually, I would think the very act of using connection pooling would ensure that applications may well not know whether or not a nextval had been called. In other words, how is an application supposed to know if the previous bit of code that used this connection issued a nextval() when you're connection pooling and any piece of code could have run before you. On the other hand, using currval as a test to see if a value has been used is probably not the best way of doing things either. I'd imagine some kind of static or session var would be better suited to that task.
"scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com> writes:
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I don't know how you could have an application that doesn't know if it
>> has issued a nextval() in the current connection. Unless you can explain
>> that, we have no intention of playing tricks with currval() for
>> connection pooling.
> Actually, I would think the very act of using connection pooling would
> ensure that applications may well not know whether or not a nextval had
> been called.
The point is that it's not very sensible to be using currval except
immediately after a nextval --- usually in the same transaction, I would
think. Certainly, not resetting currval implies that there is
*potential* coupling between different transactions that happen to share
a connection. But ISTM that such coupling would represent a bug in the
application.
Chris said he was using currval being undefined to know that no rows
were inserted, but this seems less than compelling to me (why not look
at the results of the insert commands you used?). I'd support adding a
currval-reset feature if someone can make a more compelling argument why
a connection-pooling application would need it.
There are big chunks of other state in the backend that are not
resettable --- prepared statements being one that I think will have much
more visibility in 7.4. Should we offer something to let all prepared
statements be dropped? Would connection poolers actually find it
useful? (I'd think it much more likely they want to re-use prepared
statements.)
regards, tom lane
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Chris Gamache wrote: > I'm using sequences and currval() to retrieve the last inserted row in a table. > > > If currval() is undefined, as it is when a connection is made, then I know no > rows were inserted in that table and can take a different action. This is > problematic when using a connection pooling library, as the value of currval() > for any given sequence could possibly be set from a previous "connection". > > One (theoretical) workaround would be to issue some sort of command to the > back-end database to wipe all values of currval() when a "new" connection is > made. I've done some digging in the system tables and source code, and can't > find an obvious solution. Perhaps one you you gurus can suggest a SQL statement > to do such a thing. > > Alternately, if there is a better way to retrieve the last inserted row for any > given table, I'd be very grateful for the tip. It would need to be independent > of the connection history, and undefined if there has not been a row inserted > to the table during a definable interval of time (drop anchor when the > "connection" begins, raise anchor when the "connection" ends), and be > independant of the other connections inserting rows to the same table. > > Any idaeas? Are you writing in java? If yes, then implementing a wrapper around Connection would be a way. > > CG > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your > joining column's datatypes do not match > -- ================================================================== Achilleus Mantzios S/W Engineer IT dept Dynacom Tankers Mngmt Nikis 4, Glyfada Athens 16610 Greece tel: +30-210-8981112 fax: +30-210-8981877 email: achill at matrix dot gatewaynet dot com mantzios at softlab dot ece dot ntua dot gr
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Tom Lane wrote: > "scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com> writes: > > On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> I don't know how you could have an application that doesn't know if it > >> has issued a nextval() in the current connection. Unless you can explain > >> that, we have no intention of playing tricks with currval() for > >> connection pooling. > > > Actually, I would think the very act of using connection pooling would > > ensure that applications may well not know whether or not a nextval had > > been called. > > The point is that it's not very sensible to be using currval except > immediately after a nextval --- usually in the same transaction, I would > think. I'm pretty sure my second paragraph agreed with you on that. > Certainly, not resetting currval implies that there is > *potential* coupling between different transactions that happen to share > a connection. But ISTM that such coupling would represent a bug in the > application. And that one too. > Chris said he was using currval being undefined to know that no rows > were inserted, but this seems less than compelling to me (why not look > at the results of the insert commands you used?). I'd support adding a > currval-reset feature if someone can make a more compelling argument why > a connection-pooling application would need it. I'd say that if someone is looking at that, it would be better to have some kind of reset_connection call that makes a connection look like you just established it. Bit I'd never use it.
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 11:40:32 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >4. Use the parser's coerce_to_boolean procedure, so that nonbooleans > will be accepted in exactly the same cases where they'd be accepted > in a boolean-requiring SQL construct (such as CASE). (By default, > none are, so this isn't really different from #2. But people could > create casts to boolean to override this behavior in a controlled > fashion.) I vote for 4. And - being fully aware of similar proposals having failed miserably - I propose to proceed as follows: If the current behaviour is considered a bug, let i=4, else let i=5. In 7.i: Create a new GUC variable "plpgsql_strict_boolean" (silly name, I know) in the "VERSION/PLATFORM COMPATIBILITY" section of postgresql.conf. Make the new behaviour dependent on this variable. Default plpgsql_strict_boolean to false. Place a warning into the release notes and maybe into the plpgsql documentation. In 7.j, j>i: Change the default value of plpgsql_strict_boolean to true. Issue WARNINGs or NOTICEs as appropriate. Update documentation. In 7.k, k>j: Remove old behaviour and GUC variable. Update documentation. ServusManfred
Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at> writes:
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 11:40:32 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> wrote:
>> 4. Use the parser's coerce_to_boolean procedure, so that nonbooleans
>> will be accepted in exactly the same cases where they'd be accepted
>> in a boolean-requiring SQL construct (such as CASE). (By default,
>> none are, so this isn't really different from #2. But people could
>> create casts to boolean to override this behavior in a controlled
>> fashion.)
> I vote for 4.
I'm willing to do that.
> And - being fully aware of similar proposals having
> failed miserably - I propose to proceed as follows:
> If the current behaviour is considered a bug, let i=4, else let i=5.
> In 7.i: Create a new GUC variable "plpgsql_strict_boolean" (silly
> name, I know) in the "VERSION/PLATFORM COMPATIBILITY" section of
> postgresql.conf. Make the new behaviour dependent on this variable.
> Default plpgsql_strict_boolean to false. Place a warning into the
> release notes and maybe into the plpgsql documentation.
> In 7.j, j>i: Change the default value of plpgsql_strict_boolean to
> true. Issue WARNINGs or NOTICEs as appropriate. Update
> documentation.
> In 7.k, k>j: Remove old behaviour and GUC variable. Update
> documentation.
I'm not willing to do that much work for what is, in the greater scheme
of things, a tiny change. If we did that for every user-visible change,
our rate of forward progress would be a mere fraction of what it is.
regards, tom lane
Define the language! If it breaks code, so be it. <p><b>2. Throw an error if the expression doesn't return boolean.</b><br/>Yes, yes, absolutely. <p>By definition "an IF, WHILE, or EXIT statement is a boolean expression" <br />SO<br /> if "some stupid piece of text" THEN <br />should not compile, there is no BOOLEAN expression. <p>C's implementationof hat is true and false has always, IMHO, been hideous. But then again, I am a Pascal kind of thinker. <br/>An integer with a value of 1 is still only an integer, <br /> IF I <> 0 THEN ... <br />is clear and un-ambiguous.<br /> <br /> <p>Tom Lane wrote: <blockquote type="CITE">Following up this gripe <br /><a href="http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2003-09/msg00044.php">http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2003-09/msg00044.php</a><br />I'verealized that plpgsql just assumes that the test expression <br />of an IF, WHILE, or EXIT statement is a boolean expression. It <br />doesn't take any measures to ensure this is the case or convert <br />the value if it's not the case. This seems pretty bogus to me. <p>However ... with the code as it stands, for pass-by-reference datatypes <br />anynonnull value will appear TRUE, while for pass-by-value datatypes <br />any nonzero value will appear TRUE. I fearthat people may actually be <br />depending on these behaviors, particularly the latter one which is <br />pretty reasonableif you're accustomed to C. So while I'd like to throw <br />an error if the argument isn't boolean, I'm afraidof breaking people's <br />function definitions. <p>Here are some possible responses, roughly in order of difficulty<br />to implement: <p>1. Leave well enough alone (and perhaps document the behavior). <p>2. Throw an error ifthe expression doesn't return boolean. <p>3. Try to convert nonbooleans to boolean using plpgsql's usual method <br /> for cross-type coercion, ie run the type's output proc to get a <br /> string and feed it to bool's input proc. (Thisseems unlikely to <br /> avoid throwing an error in very many cases, but it'd be the most <br /> consistent withother parts of plpgsql.) <p>4. Use the parser's coerce_to_boolean procedure, so that nonbooleans <br /> will be acceptedin exactly the same cases where they'd be accepted <br /> in a boolean-requiring SQL construct (such as CASE). (By default, <br /> none are, so this isn't really different from #2. But people could <br /> create casts toboolean to override this behavior in a controlled <br /> fashion.) <p>Any opinions about what to do? <p> regards, tom lane <p>---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- <br/>TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate <br /> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.orgso that your <br /> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly</blockquote>
Tom Lane wrote: > Following up this gripe > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2003-09/msg00044.php > I've realized that plpgsql just assumes that the test expression > of an IF, WHILE, or EXIT statement is a boolean expression. It > doesn't take any measures to ensure this is the case or convert > the value if it's not the case. This seems pretty bogus to me. > > However ... with the code as it stands, for pass-by-reference datatypes > any nonnull value will appear TRUE, while for pass-by-value datatypes > any nonzero value will appear TRUE. I fear that people may actually be > depending on these behaviors, particularly the latter one which is > pretty reasonable if you're accustomed to C. So while I'd like to throw > an error if the argument isn't boolean, I'm afraid of breaking people's > function definitions. > > Here are some possible responses, roughly in order of difficulty > to implement: > > 1. Leave well enough alone (and perhaps document the behavior). > > 2. Throw an error if the expression doesn't return boolean. ERROR is the cleanest way, but I'd vote for conversion to boolean to keep the damage within reason. Jan > > 3. Try to convert nonbooleans to boolean using plpgsql's usual method > for cross-type coercion, ie run the type's output proc to get a > string and feed it to bool's input proc. (This seems unlikely to > avoid throwing an error in very many cases, but it'd be the most > consistent with other parts of plpgsql.) > > 4. Use the parser's coerce_to_boolean procedure, so that nonbooleans > will be accepted in exactly the same cases where they'd be accepted > in a boolean-requiring SQL construct (such as CASE). (By default, > none are, so this isn't really different from #2. But people could > create casts to boolean to override this behavior in a controlled > fashion.) > > Any opinions about what to do? > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> writes:
> ERROR is the cleanest way, but I'd vote for conversion to boolean to
> keep the damage within reason.
Which style of conversion did you like? These were the choices:
>> 3. Try to convert nonbooleans to boolean using plpgsql's usual method
>> for cross-type coercion, ie run the type's output proc to get a
>> string and feed it to bool's input proc. (This seems unlikely to
>> avoid throwing an error in very many cases, but it'd be the most
>> consistent with other parts of plpgsql.)
>>
>> 4. Use the parser's coerce_to_boolean procedure, so that nonbooleans
>> will be accepted in exactly the same cases where they'd be accepted
>> in a boolean-requiring SQL construct (such as CASE). (By default,
>> none are, so this isn't really different from #2. But people could
>> create casts to boolean to override this behavior in a controlled
>> fashion.)
At this point I'm kinda leaning to #4, because (for example) people
could create a cast from integer to boolean to avoid having to fix their
plpgsql functions right away. #3 would not offer any configurability of
behavior.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at> writes: > > On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 11:40:32 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> > > wrote: > >> 4. Use the parser's coerce_to_boolean procedure, so that nonbooleans > >> will be accepted in exactly the same cases where they'd be accepted > >> in a boolean-requiring SQL construct (such as CASE). (By default, > >> none are, so this isn't really different from #2. But people could > >> create casts to boolean to override this behavior in a controlled > >> fashion.) > > > I vote for 4. > > I'm willing to do that. OK, what release should we do this? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
I would suggest to throw a error, or at least a warning. This will FORCE people to program in the correct way. I also thought that 'IF $1 THEN ...' should work ok but giving it a other thought it's indeed stuped to write that way (I'm from the C world...) Ries -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: pgsql-sql-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-sql-owner@postgresql.org]Namens Tom Lane Verzonden: maandag 8 september 2003 17:41 Aan: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Onderwerp: [SQL] plpgsql doesn't coerce boolean expressions to boolean Following up this gripe http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2003-09/msg00044.php I've realized that plpgsql just assumes that the test expression of an IF, WHILE, or EXIT statement is a boolean expression. It doesn't take any measures to ensure this is the case or convert the value if it's not the case. This seems pretty bogus to me. However ... with the code as it stands, for pass-by-reference datatypes any nonnull value will appear TRUE, while for pass-by-value datatypes any nonzero value will appear TRUE. I fear that people may actually be depending on these behaviors, particularly the latter one which is pretty reasonable if you're accustomed to C. So while I'd like to throw an error if the argument isn't boolean, I'm afraid of breaking people's function definitions. Here are some possible responses, roughly in order of difficulty to implement: 1. Leave well enough alone (and perhaps document the behavior). 2. Throw an error if the expression doesn't return boolean. 3. Try to convert nonbooleans to boolean using plpgsql's usual method for cross-type coercion, ie run the type's outputproc to get a string and feed it to bool's input proc. (This seems unlikely to avoid throwing an error in very manycases, but it'd be the most consistent with other parts of plpgsql.) 4. Use the parser's coerce_to_boolean procedure, so that nonbooleans will be accepted in exactly the same cases where they'dbe accepted in a boolean-requiring SQL construct (such as CASE). (By default, none are, so this isn't really differentfrom #2. But people could create casts to boolean to override this behavior in a controlled fashion.) Any opinions about what to do? regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.orgso that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Tom Lane wrote: >Following up this gripe >http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2003-09/msg00044.php >I've realized that plpgsql just assumes that the test expression >of an IF, WHILE, or EXIT statement is a boolean expression. It >doesn't take any measures to ensure this is the case or convert >the value if it's not the case. This seems pretty bogus to me. > >However ... with the code as it stands, for pass-by-reference datatypes >any nonnull value will appear TRUE, while for pass-by-value datatypes >any nonzero value will appear TRUE. I fear that people may actually be >depending on these behaviors, particularly the latter one which is >pretty reasonable if you're accustomed to C. So while I'd like to throw >an error if the argument isn't boolean, I'm afraid of breaking people's >function definitions. > >Here are some possible responses, roughly in order of difficulty >to implement: > >1. Leave well enough alone (and perhaps document the behavior). > >2. Throw an error if the expression doesn't return boolean. > >3. Try to convert nonbooleans to boolean using plpgsql's usual method > for cross-type coercion, ie run the type's output proc to get a > string and feed it to bool's input proc. (This seems unlikely to > avoid throwing an error in very many cases, but it'd be the most > consistent with other parts of plpgsql.) > >4. Use the parser's coerce_to_boolean procedure, so that nonbooleans > will be accepted in exactly the same cases where they'd be accepted > in a boolean-requiring SQL construct (such as CASE). (By default, > none are, so this isn't really different from #2. But people could > create casts to boolean to override this behavior in a controlled > fashion.) > >Any opinions about what to do? > > > It won't bite me so maybe I don't have a right to express an opinion :-) plpgsql is not C - it appears to be in the Algol/Pascal/Ada family, which do tend to avoid implicit type conversion. On that basis, option 2 seems like it might be the right answer and also the one most likely to break lots of existing functions. Maybe the right thing would be to deprecate relying on implicit conversion to boolean for one release cycle and then make it an error. cheers andrew
Tom Lane wrote: > Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> writes: >> ERROR is the cleanest way, but I'd vote for conversion to boolean to >> keep the damage within reason. > > Which style of conversion did you like? These were the choices: > >>> 3. Try to convert nonbooleans to boolean using plpgsql's usual method >>> for cross-type coercion, ie run the type's output proc to get a >>> string and feed it to bool's input proc. (This seems unlikely to >>> avoid throwing an error in very many cases, but it'd be the most >>> consistent with other parts of plpgsql.) >>> >>> 4. Use the parser's coerce_to_boolean procedure, so that nonbooleans >>> will be accepted in exactly the same cases where they'd be accepted >>> in a boolean-requiring SQL construct (such as CASE). (By default, >>> none are, so this isn't really different from #2. But people could >>> create casts to boolean to override this behavior in a controlled >>> fashion.) > > At this point I'm kinda leaning to #4, because (for example) people > could create a cast from integer to boolean to avoid having to fix their > plpgsql functions right away. #3 would not offer any configurability of > behavior. Agreed - #4. Thinking of the problem about deprication of features and transition time, it would be nice for this kind of compatibility breaking changes to have a _per database_ config option that controls old vs. new behaviour, wouldn't it? Don't know exactly how you'd like that to be. Maybe with a pg_config catalog that inherits default settings from template1 but can then be changed in every database. This would even include the possibility to *switch* one single prod database back to the old behaviour in case the supposedly cleaned up application isn't as clean as supposed to. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
Where are we on this --- we all decided on #4. Does this just require an announcment in the release notes. (I need to complete the release notes soon.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Lane wrote: > Following up this gripe > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2003-09/msg00044.php > I've realized that plpgsql just assumes that the test expression > of an IF, WHILE, or EXIT statement is a boolean expression. It > doesn't take any measures to ensure this is the case or convert > the value if it's not the case. This seems pretty bogus to me. > > However ... with the code as it stands, for pass-by-reference datatypes > any nonnull value will appear TRUE, while for pass-by-value datatypes > any nonzero value will appear TRUE. I fear that people may actually be > depending on these behaviors, particularly the latter one which is > pretty reasonable if you're accustomed to C. So while I'd like to throw > an error if the argument isn't boolean, I'm afraid of breaking people's > function definitions. > > Here are some possible responses, roughly in order of difficulty > to implement: > > 1. Leave well enough alone (and perhaps document the behavior). > > 2. Throw an error if the expression doesn't return boolean. > > 3. Try to convert nonbooleans to boolean using plpgsql's usual method > for cross-type coercion, ie run the type's output proc to get a > string and feed it to bool's input proc. (This seems unlikely to > avoid throwing an error in very many cases, but it'd be the most > consistent with other parts of plpgsql.) > > 4. Use the parser's coerce_to_boolean procedure, so that nonbooleans > will be accepted in exactly the same cases where they'd be accepted > in a boolean-requiring SQL construct (such as CASE). (By default, > none are, so this isn't really different from #2. But people could > create casts to boolean to override this behavior in a controlled > fashion.) > > Any opinions about what to do? > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Where are we on this --- we all decided on #4. Does this just require
> an announcment in the release notes.
I haven't done anything about it --- been busy with other stuff, and I
wasn't sure we'd agreed to change it for 7.4 anyway. I'm willing to
make the code change though.
regards, tom lane