Tom Lane wrote:
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
functio
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
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The attached patch removes "convert ... using ..." as recently discussed
on -hackers. Most of the patch is regression test changes.
You should be able to remove CONVERT as a grammar keyword altogether
-- the remaining product
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The attached patch removes "convert ... using ..." as recently discussed
> on -hackers. Most of the patch is regression test changes.
You should be able to remove CONVERT as a grammar keyword altogether
-- the remaining production for CONVERT as a func
The attached patch removes "convert ... using ..." as recently discussed
on -hackers. Most of the patch is regression test changes.
If there's no objection I'll apply it in a day or two.
cheers
andrew
convusing.patch.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data
---(end
