Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Sure, I said *after* we fail to find an exact match. But the "freebie" >> match is for a function name that matches a type name and is >> binary-compatible with the source type. That's not a weak constraint. >> ISTM that interpretation should take priority over interpretations that >> involve more than one level of transformation.
> Ah, OK I think. If there is a counterexample, it is probably no less > obscure than this one. Done. Essentially, this amounts to interchanging steps 2 and 3 of the function call resolution rules described at http://www.ca.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/7.1/postgres/typeconv-func.html regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
