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.
