Re: Missing docs on AT TIME ZONE precedence?

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 2023-11-28 Tu 10:27, Tom Lane wrote:
>> OK.  How about rewriting that first para like this?

> LGTM. Thanks.

Thanks for reviewing.  While checking things over one more time,
I noticed that there was an additional violation of this precept,
dating back to long before we understood the hazards: SET is
given its own priority, when it could perfectly well share that
of IDENT.  I adjusted that and pushed.

            regards, tom lane