Re: PostgreSQL Bug with simple function unexpectedly treating varchar parameter as an array

From: Rumpi Gravenstein <rgravens(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Bug with simple function unexpectedly treating varchar parameter as an array
Date: 2025-07-25 17:18:07
Message-ID: CAEpg1wALRocK=uDSNyJqdc=vhNGjYFmT3H_TNzihSOMS88WHfg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

<snip>
Now I'm wondering about stray entries in pg_cast. Also,
do you have any extensions loaded in that DB that aren't
in your other ones?
</snip>

Our databases are deployed with automation tools. They should all be
created the same. They all have the same 17 extensions. I've asked a DBA
to confirm.

This issue only appears in the function I have listed. A similar function,
same contents and parameter but with a different name, works the way I
would expect.

On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 1:10 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Rumpi Gravenstein <rgravens(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > No ... just one version:
>
> D'oh, actually this would have complained if there was more
> than one match, so that theory is wrong:
>
> > xxxx_pub_dev_2_db=# DROP FUNCTION if exists _sa_setup_role;
> > DROP FUNCTION
>
> Now I'm wondering about stray entries in pg_cast. Also,
> do you have any extensions loaded in that DB that aren't
> in your other ones?
>
> regards, tom lane
>

--
Rumpi Gravenstein

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2025-07-25 17:50:19 Re: PostgreSQL Bug with simple function unexpectedly treating varchar parameter as an array
Previous Message Tom Lane 2025-07-25 17:10:22 Re: PostgreSQL Bug with simple function unexpectedly treating varchar parameter as an array