Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: remove convert using

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: "Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: remove convert using
Date: 2007-09-24 00:27:30
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
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

In response to


pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2007-09-24 01:30:33
Subject: Re: remove convert using
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2007-09-23 23:59:01
Subject: Re: remove convert using

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group