Re: SQL99, CREATE CAST, and initdb

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?