Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF?

From: Joshua Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, 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: 2020-11-20 00:49:52
Message-ID: CAJvJg-Tv=Oz+ThNCMedxyQGEEO0Ak7EKWN4ZWmK04Dj53Q6FWQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Howdy,

Well I certainly wasn't trying to make work out of that blog but I am glad
to see it was productive.

JD

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 2:43 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2020-11-20 00:51:51 Re: error_severity of brin work item
Previous Message James Hilliard 2020-11-20 00:45:29 Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix compilation on mac with Xcode >= 11.4.