Re: BUG: text(varchar) truncates at 31 bytes

> Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org> writes:
> >> Perhaps it'd be a better idea for the option of a freebie
conversion
> >> to be checked earlier, say immediately after we discover there is
no
> >> exact match for the function name and input type.  Thomas, what do
you
> >> think?
> 
> > We *really* need that catalog lookup first. Otherwise, we will never
be
> > able to override the hardcoded compatibility assumptions in that
> > matching routine.
> 
> 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.

That sounds very reasonable to me.

Andreas