| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
|---|
| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | interval * numeric operator |
| Date: | 2007-11-07 15:50:56 |
| Message-ID: | 200711071650.56373.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
There are interval * double precision operators (both ways) but none for
interval * numeric. Adding this would make sense since interval is now
optionally stored as fixed-point internally. Any objections to adding this
in 8.4?
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: interval * numeric operator |
| Date: | 2007-11-08 12:39:48 |
| Message-ID: | 47330394.5040205@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> There are interval * double precision operators (both ways) but none for
> interval * numeric. Adding this would make sense since interval is now
> optionally stored as fixed-point internally. Any objections to adding this
> in 8.4?
>
+1
I've been casting to Numeric anyway.
--Josh
| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: interval * numeric operator |
| Date: | 2007-11-08 13:37:28 |
| Message-ID: | 87pryk97tz.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> There are interval * double precision operators (both ways) but none for
>> interval * numeric. Adding this would make sense since interval is now
>> optionally stored as fixed-point internally. Any objections to adding this
>> in 8.4?
>
> +1
>
> I've been casting to Numeric anyway.
Shouldn't the cast be implicit anyways? What does having double precision
operators buy us? Wouldn't it introduce ambiguities?
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's 24x7 Postgres support!
| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: interval * numeric operator |
| Date: | 2007-11-08 14:22:10 |
| Message-ID: | 200711081522.10681.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Am Donnerstag, 8. November 2007 schrieb Gregory Stark:
> Shouldn't the cast be implicit anyways? What does having double precision
> operators buy us? Wouldn't it introduce ambiguities?
Unless you use --enable-integer-datetimes, interval is stored as float
internally, so historically, the selection of offered operators is correct.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/