From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
cc: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?SsOhbiBQZWNzxZFr?= <jan.pecsok@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: CAST from numeric(18,3) to numeric doesnt work, posgresql 13.3
In-reply-to: 
 <CAKFQuwbcqiOK_XbjkgRK9dTH9n-GmpJtgWUp=Jh+7kEOOVnoGQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CABNQVagu3bZGqiTjb31a8D5Od3fUMs7Oh3gmZMQZVHZ=uWWWfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2352034.1628127322@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAEZATCWcOOGcYwTV0pv2F0o07w+dL7A2JN88fq5U-K29i=Ls=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <2395471.1628180285@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAKFQuwbcqiOK_XbjkgRK9dTH9n-GmpJtgWUp=Jh+7kEOOVnoGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
	message dated "Fri, 06 Aug 2021 11:58:45 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2501010.1628277029.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2021 15:10:29 -0400
Message-ID: <2501011.1628277029@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2501011.1628277029%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> Here is a recent newbie help request I fielded in Discord:

> WITH RECURSIVE fizz_buzz (sequence, modulo_3, modulo_5) AS (
>   SELECT 1, CAST('' AS CHAR(4)), CAST('' AS CHAR(4))
>   UNION ALL
>   SELECT sequence + 1,
>        CASE WHEN MOD(sequence + 1, 3) =3D 0 THEN 'Fizz'
>      ELSE '' END,
>        CASE WHEN MOD(sequence + 1, 5) =3D 0 THEN 'Buzz'
>      ELSE '' END
>   FROM fizz_buzz
>   WHERE sequence < 100
> )
> SELECT
>     CASE WHEN CONCAT(modulo_3, modulo_5) =3D '' THEN sequence
>     ELSE CONCAT(modulo_3, modulo_5) END AS fizzbuzz
> FROM fizz_buzz;

I'd class that one as pilot error, in that the query author
isn't even trying to make the two sides of the union agree
type-wise.  It's not the same as the point at hand, where
someone did try to cast to the correct type but the parser
ignored it.

> And the just posted Bug 17137:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/17137-3d3732d5a259612c%40postgresq=
l.org
> Are these related?

Right, that one is a dup of the current issue.

> I would agree with doing this in v14 then back-patch with the next updat=
e.

Yeah, I'm going to push to v14 shortly if I don't hear objections soon.

			regards, tom lane