From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SQL99, CREATE CAST, and initdb |
Date: | 2002-06-25 00:45:14 |
Message-ID: | 3122.1024965914@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> writes:
> I've got another issue with casting which I've run into while testing
> this feature; afaict invoking an explicit CAST() in SQL does not
> guarantee that the function of the expected name would be called, if
> that function does not have the implicit flag set.
[ scratches head ] Whether the flag is set or not shouldn't matter;
if the cast function is needed it will be called. Were you perhaps
testing binary-compatible cases? Note the order of cases specified in
http://www.ca.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/7.2/postgres/typeconv-func.html
I recall we changed what is now case 2 to be higher priority than it
used to be; I do not recall the examples that motivated that change,
but I'm pretty sure moving it down in the priority list would be bad.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-06-25 00:55:24 | Re: SQL99, CREATE CAST, and initdb |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-06-25 00:40:46 | Re: oids rollover? |