Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF?
Date: 2020-11-19 22:42:58
Message-ID: 1251955.1605825778@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2020-11-19 22:51:42 Re: new heapcheck contrib module
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2020-11-19 22:00:11 Re: ERROR: too many dynamic shared memory segment