X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77916D1F1C5 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 16:46:29 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 11434-10 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 16:46:10 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75623D1F1DA for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 16:46:08 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i45Jk7RR009347; Wed, 5 May 2004 15:46:07 -0400 (EDT) To: Rod Taylor Cc: patkins , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Procedure failing after upgrade In-reply-to: <1083779396.60668.10.camel@jester> References: <20040504133209.3EC83D1CAB0@svr1.postgresql.org> <1083779396.60668.10.camel@jester> Comments: In-reply-to Rod Taylor message dated "Wed, 05 May 2004 13:49:57 -0400" Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 15:46:07 -0400 Message-ID: <9346.1083786367@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200405/53 X-Sequence-Number: 17767 Rod Taylor writes: > an interesting error. It appears as if the integer array type is being > confused for a boolean. Up till 7.4, plpgsql's control statements didn't actually check whether the given expression returned boolean :-(. They just assumed that the resulting Datum should be interpreted as a bool. 7.4 will coerce to bool or throw an error if it can't. regards, tom lane