Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.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
