Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 427F9632235;
	Tue,  6 Jan 2009 09:48:12 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 59237-04; Tue,  6 Jan 2009 09:48:08 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39746632226;
	Tue,  6 Jan 2009 09:48:09 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n06Dm6G3008184;
	Tue, 6 Jan 2009 08:48:06 -0500 (EST)
To: "Gurjeet Singh" <singh.gurjeet@gmail.com>
cc: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>,
	"PGSQL General" <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>,
	"PGSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: failed to find conversion function from
	"unknown" to text
In-reply-to: <65937bea0901060538n13099005p62f05ef60ed352bd@mail.gmail.com> 
References: <65937bea0901052223w162a977dyeaaf888a854f7324@mail.gmail.com>
	<162867790901052230l25b10f08qa35f56856b9cc4c6@mail.gmail.com>
	<65937bea0901052237j50657573i8c980f9f5f4814d5@mail.gmail.com>
	<162867790901052245l4e4fa9b2ydc03781b45b13276@mail.gmail.com>
	<65937bea0901060104n399cdec8ye5e2b8e247e5139a@mail.gmail.com>
	<7588.1231246899@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<65937bea0901060538n13099005p62f05ef60ed352bd@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "Gurjeet Singh" <singh.gurjeet@gmail.com>
	message dated "Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:08:21 +0530"
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 08:48:06 -0500
Message-ID: <8183.1231249686@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200901/79
X-Sequence-Number: 142164

"Gurjeet Singh" <singh.gurjeet@gmail.com> writes:
>> This is a horrendously bad idea; it will bite your *ss sooner or later,
>> probably sooner.

> Can you please let us know how this would be problematic?

The point is that it's going to have unknown, untested effects on the
default coercion rules, possibly leading to silent changes in the
behavior of queries that used to work.  If you'd rather retest every one
of your other queries than fix this one, then go ahead.

			regards, tom lane