Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org> writes:
>> 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.
> Ah, OK I think. If there is a counterexample, it is probably no less
> obscure than this one.
Done. Essentially, this amounts to interchanging steps 2 and 3 of the
function call resolution rules described at
http://www.ca.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/7.1/postgres/typeconv-func.html
regards, tom lane