Обсуждение: 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/