Re: Removal of operator_precedence_warning

On 2020-Dec-04, Tom Lane wrote:

> I think it's time for $SUBJECT. We added this GUC in 9.5, which
> will be EOL by the time of our next major release, and it was never
> meant as more than a transitional aid. Moreover, it's been buggy
> as heck (cf abb164655, 05104f693, 01e0cbc4f, 4cae471d1), and the
> fact that some of those errors went undetected for years shows that
> it's not really gotten much field usage.
>
> Hence, I propose the attached. Comments?

I wonder if it'd be fruitful to ask the submitters of those bugs about
their experiences with the feature. Did they find it useful in finding
precedence problems in their code? Did they experience other problems
that they didn't report?

Reading the reports mentioned in those commits, it doesn't look like any
of them were actually using the feature -- they all seem to have come
across the problems by accidents of varying nature.