Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 22:31:55 -0700
From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>,
	Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
	Petr Fedorov <petr.fedorov@phystech.edu>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Since '2001-09-09 01:46:40'::timestamp microseconds are lost
 when extracting epoch
Message-ID: <20210608053155.GB444080@rfd.leadboat.com>
References: <428767b1-6a18-cc5a-bb2f-a78bc306fae3@postgresfriends.org>
 <6816.1590426450@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <7994.1590428104@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <298489.1604188643@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <829899.1604357408@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <1090402.1604449334@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20210606063331.GC297923@rfd.leadboat.com>
 <633566.1622990278@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <650852.1622997506@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <660576.1623006607@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <660576.1623006607@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210608053155.GB444080%40rfd.leadboat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 03:10:07PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > We could make use of COMPARE_COERCIONFORM_FIELD 100% correct by removing
> > these two tests of the funcformat value, but on the whole I doubt that
> > would be better.
> 
> On still closer inspection, that seems like it'd be fine.  All of
> the gram.y productions that emit COERCE_SQL_SYNTAX also produce
> schema-qualified function names (via SystemFuncName); and it seems
> hard to see a use-case where we'd not do that.  This makes the two
> checks I cited 100% redundant, because the conditions they are in
> also insist on an unqualified function name.  So let's just take them
> out again, making it strictly OK to use COMPARE_COERCIONFORM_FIELD.

I have little intuition on this exact topic, but I have no particular concerns
about the change you pushed.