Thread: interval * numeric operator
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/
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
"Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.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!
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/