Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.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.
>
OK, fix committed doing this.
cheers
andrew
