> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Bruce Momjian writes: > >> I would love to say that this is related to change in casts, but that > >> isn't the case. > > > Sure it is. The float=>int casts need to be made implicit, or > we'll have > > tons of problems like this. > > Well, yeah. That did not seem to bother anyone last spring, when we > were discussing tightening the implicit-casting rules. Shall we > abandon all that work and go back to "any available cast can be applied > implicitly"? > > My vote is "tough, time to fix your SQL code".
Wasn't the resolution back then to "wait until beta and see who complains"? Chris ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
