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

Reply via email to