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
