Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > Well if we are going to continue to support money (which I am against)
> > we should support the casting to numeric as that is by far a more
> > common implementation of money and we will have mixed environments.
>
> So, you don't use MONEY, and you don't want to, but nonetheless you
> know better than the people who do use MONEY what they need.
>
> Aside from the semantic-gap issue, there is the point that providing
> a cast might actually mask application errors. I can well imagine
> cases where one of the reasons for using MONEY is *exactly* that it's
> not a plain number or easily convertible to one.

Right. I am not thinking of an auto-cast but rather give people _some_
way to cast to/from MONEY, which is what the TODO says:

* Allow MONEY to be cast to/from other numeric data types

Even when we have multiple currency designations I would think people
would need a way to cast. I am trying to anticpate how MONEY will be
used. You are right we don't have any field requests yet, but I am
expecting them.

I have added documentation on the issues of casting to/from MONEY;
patch attached and applied.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings