Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > I agree that redefining the lexer behavior is a can of worms. What I > don't understand is why f(2+2) can't call f(smallint) when that's the > only extant f. It seems to me that we could do that without breaking > anything that works today: if you look for candidates and don't find > any, try again, allowing assignment casts the second time.
Yeah, possibly. Where would you fit that in the existing sequence of tests? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/typeconv-func.html regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
