Greg Stark <gsst...@mit.edu> wrote: > Given that pg_typeof() is a relatively new and pg-specific piece of > machinery how did this bite you on on your conversion to Postgres > some years ago? It wasn't the use of pg_typeof which caused us problems, but the types the example demonstrated. Primarily that bit us when our framework substituted values from the application or user selection windows into complex queries, with the result that a coalesce of two NULLs was used in a context where numbers or dates were expected. Our initial hack, which got us up and running fine, was to modify the JDBC driver to substitute a bare NULL for the COALESCE of two NULLs in the JDBC compatibility code which mapped to COALESCE. As a longer- term, less fragile fix we pushed type information deeper into the code making the JDBC requests and had it explicitly wrap a NULL with a CAST. Still, it rates pretty high on my astonishment scale that a COALESCE of two untyped NULLs (or for that matter, any two values of unknown type) returns a text value. It's one of those things which apparently seems unsurprising for those viewing the product from the inside out. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
