Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
