Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:_display_to=5Ftimestamp?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?_in_quotas_or_convert_to_char_=3F?=
From: =?UTF-8?Q?czezz?= <czezz@o2.pl>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Scott_Ribe?=<scott_ribe@elevated-dev.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Albe_Laurenz?=<laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>,
 =?UTF-8?Q?Postgres_Maillist?=<pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <CA0B2CA1-D2CB-490C-A394-8D3BC376A59A@elevated-dev.com>
References: <22c93a48.7dc1250c.5548946d.f29b0@o2.pl>
 <FA3EDC66-B5A8-461F-8EAD-48124674C7BB@elevated-dev.com>
 <79bfc5f9.244b3aa3.5548d1d4.9c8af@o2.pl>
 <CA0B2CA1-D2CB-490C-A394-8D3BC376A59A@elevated-dev.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <5d1b4284.53c7658d.5548dd1d.bf503@o2.pl>
Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 17:09:17 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org

Hi,
ya, that is the background of this story.=20

There is one internal app in my company that frequently runs into specific =
error - related to that query.
Its actually not Devs team who reject to look at this but support team (whi=
ch is one step before devs)
So, now showing them this same query with added to_char() they should "shut=
-the-front-door" and send it to correction.

...though its really difficult with them.

Anyway thank you all for  your help :)

BR,
czezz

Dnia 5 maja 2015 16:47 Scott Ribe <scott_ribe@elevated-dev.com> napisa=C5=
=82(a):

> On May 5, 2015, at 8:21 AM, czezz <czezz@o2.pl> wrote:
> >=20
> > This is because this query is executed/hardcoded in application.
> > And by executing it like this I can prove devs that there is a problem.
>=20
> So you were really looking for an explanation of why it didn=E2=80=99t wo=
rk, in order to pass along to people whom you=E2=80=99re having trouble con=
vincing? OK, didn=E2=80=99t get that from your post, now it makes sense. It=
 just seemed odd that you seemed to be ignoring the most correct (and easy)=
 solution ;-)
>=20
> Anyway, now the we understand that=E2=80=A6 PostgreSQL used to be more ag=
gressive about automatically casting text types to more specific types. I s=
uspect, though I don=E2=80=99t recall for sure, that this query would have =
worked on some earlier versions. Later versions removed some of the automat=
ic casting, because it was found that those casts caused problems=E2=80=94t=
hat sometimes they would cause accidental type mismatches to be executed in=
stead of flagged, and produce incorrect results instead of an error message=
, so the decision was made that if you want to compare mismatched types, yo=
u have to be explicit about it.
>=20
>=20


--=20
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin