Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But yes, schema-qualifying casts seems weird:
> '123'::someschema.user_type
> Is that even accepted by the grammar?
Yes, but it'd be taken as a qualification on the type name not the cast
per se. Offhand I'm not sure where we could even put a schema name for
the cast itself in the CAST syntax ... so that idea probably doesn't fly
at all.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
