Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > Whatever happened to this patch? > > I think we bounced it on the grounds that it would represent a > fundamental change in plpgsql behavior and break a whole lot of > applications. People have been relying on plpgsql's coerce-via-IO > assignment behavior for ten years. If you prefer coerce via > cast conversion, you can get that by writing an explicit cast. > > Now it is true that a lot of the uses for that were subsumed when > we added coerce-via-IO to the native cast capabilities; but I'm > still quite scared of what this would break, and I don't see any > field demand for a change.
Thanks. Sorry to be asking so many questions but it is the only way I can be sure we have covered everything. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com PG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
