On 11/25/12 7:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > Sure, in theory that is true, but no other RDBMS that I know about > feels a need to error out in that situation. I'm skeptical of the > contention that we're smarter than everyone else.
Well, I think in most programming languages that have typed function prototypes, define foo(string) call foo(55) is an error. I could be convinced otherwise, but that's my current impression. So the principle of rejecting this is not new. If, on the other hand, we want to align more with other RDBMS that apparently allow this, we should look closer into by what rules they do this. If they use assignment casts (that is, the same rules that apply when running INSERT, for example), we could look into using that as well, but then we should do that all the time, and not only as a fallback of some sort. Because that's (a) arbitrary, and (b) causes failures when overloaded functions are added, which shouldn't happen (the existing cases where adding overloaded functions cause an existing function to fail are surely warts that should be removed, not new ones designed in). I wonder what implicit casts would be good for if assignment casts applied for function and operator calls. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
