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.
