Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 8:59 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> The reason I ask is that this case started failing after I fixed
>> a parse_coerce.c bug that allowed a CollateExpr node to survive
>> in this WHERE expression, which by rights it should not. I'm
>> inclined to think that the test case is wrong and should be removed,
>> but maybe there's some reason to have a variant of it.
> Indeed, this doesn't do anything useful, other than prove that we
> record a collation dependency where it is (uselessly) allowed in an
> expression. Since you're not going to allow that anymore, it should
> be dropped.
OK, I'll go clean it up. Thanks!
regards, tom lane
