reject-binary-coercions-on-ranges.patch

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/functioncmds.c b/src/backend/commands/functioncmds.c
index 6593fd7d81..149642ab1b 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/functioncmds.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/functioncmds.c
@@ -1689,13 +1689,18 @@ CreateCast(CreateCastStmt *stmt)
 					 errmsg("source and target data types are not physically compatible")));
 
 		/*
-		 * We know that composite, enum and array types are never binary-
-		 * compatible with each other.  They all have OIDs embedded in them.
+		 * We know that composite, array, range and enum types are never
+		 * binary-compatible with each other.  They all have OIDs embedded in
+		 * them.
 		 *
 		 * Theoretically you could build a user-defined base type that is
-		 * binary-compatible with a composite, enum, or array type.  But we
-		 * disallow that too, as in practice such a cast is surely a mistake.
-		 * You can always work around that by writing a cast function.
+		 * binary-compatible with such a type.  But we disallow that too, as
+		 * in practice such a cast is surely a mistake.  You can always work
+		 * around that by writing a cast function.
+		 *
+		 * NOTE: if we didn't exclude every kind of container type for this
+		 * reason, we'd likely need to recursively apply all of these same
+		 * checks to the contained type(s).
 		 */
 		if (sourcetyptype == TYPTYPE_COMPOSITE ||
 			targettyptype == TYPTYPE_COMPOSITE)
@@ -1703,6 +1708,14 @@ CreateCast(CreateCastStmt *stmt)
 					(errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_OBJECT_DEFINITION),
 					 errmsg("composite data types are not binary-compatible")));
 
+		if (sourcetyptype == TYPTYPE_RANGE ||
+			targettyptype == TYPTYPE_RANGE ||
+			sourcetyptype == TYPTYPE_MULTIRANGE ||
+			targettyptype == TYPTYPE_MULTIRANGE)
+			ereport(ERROR,
+					(errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_OBJECT_DEFINITION),
+					 errmsg("range data types are not binary-compatible")));
+
 		if (sourcetyptype == TYPTYPE_ENUM ||
 			targettyptype == TYPTYPE_ENUM)
 			ereport(ERROR,