Re: remove convert using

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> 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