Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I admit that there are cases where this could happen, and that it will
> happen a little more than it does now. But, as you say, this can
> happen now, and yet we get very few if any complaints about it,
> whereas we get regular complaints about the need to insert casts that
> other database systems do not require. The fact is that most
> functions are not overloaded, so the esoterica of overloading affect
> only a tiny number of relatively sophisticated users. The need for
> extra casts cuts a much broader swath through our user base.
I find this argument a bit specious. It probably is true that most
*user defined* functions aren't overloaded --- but that's not so true
for system-defined functions, and even less true for operators. So
the parser's behavior with overloaded calls affects all users, whether
they know it or not. It also affects developers, in that adding a
new overloaded version of a system function (that previously wasn't
overloaded) could actually reduce the number of cases for which the
function works without an explicit cast.
We have got to be really careful with changing the parser's behavior
here, or we're going to break cases that work today.
regards, tom lane
