Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> You should be able to remove CONVERT as a grammar keyword altogether >> -- the remaining production for CONVERT as a function name seems dead >> weight now (not to mention that it prevents having user-defined >> functions named CONVERT).
> I wonderted a bit about that. I thought it might be better to leave it > in case we wanted to put back "convert using" when we have better > support for multiple encodings (and maybe when we understand better what > it is actually supposed to do). Well, we could always put it back when we need it --- in the meantime, every extra keyword is some fractional drag on parsing performance. In any case I think the remaining production is probably wrong because it constrains the function to be in pg_catalog schema, when there is no grammatical evidence that it should be special. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly