| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "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 20:09:39 |
| Message-ID: | 1fdea5e4-3592-b6a6-a99d-7423308c31d5@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/19/20 12:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 11:15:33AM -0500, Joe Conway wrote:
>>> On 11/19/20 11:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> Let's just rip it out and be done. If anyone is ever
>>>> motivated to make it work per spec, they can resurrect
>>>> whatever seems useful from the git history.
>
>>> +1
>
>> +1
>
> Here's a proposed patch for that. I was amused to discover that we have
> a couple of regression test cases making use of IS OF.
I didn't check but those might be my fault ;-)
> However, I think using pg_typeof() is actually better for those tests anyway, since
> printing the regtype result is clearer, and easier to debug if the test
> ever goes wrong.
Looks good to me.
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-11-19 20:14:08 | Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF? |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2020-11-19 19:57:01 | Re: proposal: possibility to read dumped table's name from file |