On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> I'm OK with the proposed behavior change and I agree that it's >> probably what people want, but I am awfully suspicious that those >> extra casts are going to break something you haven't thought about. >> It might be worth posting a rough version first just to see if I (or >> someone else) can break it before you spend a lot of time on it. > > Additional breakage confirmed (hash functions, etc.) Looks like I need > to add a lot more support functions and test. This is still worth > doing, but don't expect it for the next commitfest.
I would also be looking carefully at whether you can construct a scenario where the operator resolution code can't decide between =(text,citext) or =(text,text) - you probably need a third type like varchar or bpchar in the mix to trigger a failure, if there's one to be found. Or you might have a problem with citext = bpchar being ambiguous between =(text,citext) and =(varchar,text), or some such thing. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
