Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От John Naylor
Тема Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF?
Дата
Msg-id CAFBsxsEZiSn1wCUdLYn-tUeWX3K5Ca=Au-AfCghijm5ghOfMDQ@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers


On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 6:43 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
After digging a bit more I noticed that we'd discussed removing
IS OF in the 2007 thread, but forebore because there wasn't an easy
replacement.  pg_typeof() was added a year later (b8fab2411), so we
could have done this at any point since then.

Pushed.

Documenting or improving IS OF was a TODO, so I've removed that entry.

--
John Naylor
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company 

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Sergei Kornilov
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Improve handling of parameter differences in physical replication
Следующее
От: Peter Eisentraut
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: jit and explain nontext