Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lpyA8-0004Id-A4 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2021 19:10:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lpyA7-0005t2-6V for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2021 19:10:19 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lpyA6-0005su-VG for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2021 19:10:18 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lpyA4-00068h-Ub for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2021 19:10:17 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 156JA7Rf660577; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 15:10:07 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Noah Misch cc: Peter Eisentraut , Vik Fearing , Thomas Munro , Petr Fedorov , pgsql-hackers Subject: Re: Since '2001-09-09 01:46:40'::timestamp microseconds are lost when extracting epoch In-reply-to: <650852.1622997506@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <9a680979-ad76-4c3b-1bc0-403152cf49dc@postgresfriends.org> <5752.1590424827@sss.pgh.pa.us> <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> Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane message dated "Sun, 06 Jun 2021 12:38:26 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <660575.1623006607.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2021 15:10:07 -0400 Message-ID: <660576.1623006607@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk 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. regards, tom lane