Re: Implicit casts to text

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> FWIW, is the attached patch about what you had in mind?  (It probably only 
> covers "normal" types at the moment.)

Hm, I hadn't realized that it would take as little work as that ...
I have an itchy feeling that you missed something but I'm not sure
what.

One thing I had wanted to do is take out the existing functions and
pg_cast entries that are effectively just providing hard-wired
equivalents to this, but that's merely housekeeping.
        regards, tom lane