Fix the code changed by commit 5c056b0c2 so that we always generate
RelabelType, not something else, for a cast to unspecified typmod.
Otherwise planner optimizations might not happen.
It appears we missed this point because the previous experiments were
done on type numeric: the parser undesirably generates a call on the
numeric() length-coercion function, but then numeric_support()
optimizes that down to a RelabelType, so that everything seems fine.
It misbehaves for types that have a non-optimized length coercion
function, such as bpchar.
Per report from John Naylor. Back-patch to all supported branches,
as the previous patch eventually was. Unfortunately, that no longer
includes 9.6 ... we really shouldn't put this type of change into a
nearly-EOL branch.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFBsxsEfbFHEkouc+FSj+3K1sHipLPbEC67L0SAe-9-da8QtYg@mail.gmail.com
Casting a value that's already of a type with a specific typmod
to an unspecified typmod doesn't do anything so far as run-time
behavior is concerned. However, it really ought to change the
exposed type of the expression to match. Up to now,
coerce_type_typmod hasn't bothered with that, which creates gotchas
in contexts such as recursive unions. If for example one side of
the union is numeric(18,3), but it needs to be plain numeric to
match the other side, there's no direct way to express that.
This is easy enough to fix, by inserting a RelabelType to update the
exposed type of the expression. However, it's a bit nervous-making
to change this behavior, because it's stood for a really long time.
But no complaints have emerged about 14beta3, so go ahead and
back-patch.
Back-patch of 5c056b0c2 into previous supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CABNQVagu3bZGqiTjb31a8D5Od3fUMs7Oh3gmZMQZVHZ=uWWWfQ@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1488389.1631984807@sss.pgh.pa.us
Upcoming patches are revamping expression evaluation significantly. It
therefore seems prudent to try to ensure that the coverage of the
existing evaluation code is high.
This commit adds coverage for the cases that can reasonably be
tested. There's still a bunch of unreachable error messages and such,
but otherwise this achieves nearly full regression test coverage (with
the exception of the unused GetAttributeByNum/GetAttributeByName).
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170310194021.ek4bs4bl2khxkmll@alap3.anarazel.de
