Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF?

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF?
Date: 2020-11-19 06:59:42
Message-ID: CAKFQuwbpettZ+Ffgvvyrr5gyZLuC28f=mkVqLpNrXAz3DnJ3Kg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wednesday, November 18, 2020, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> I wrote:
> > So my vote would be to rip it out, not document it. Somebody can try
> > again in future, perhaps. But if we document it we're just locking
> > ourselves into a SQL incompatibility.
>
> Apparently, somebody already had that thought. See func.sgml
> lines 765-782, which were commented out by 8272fc3f7.
>
>
Is there a feature code? I skimmed the standard and non-standard tables in
our appendix and couldn’t find this in either.

David J.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-11-19 07:03:59 Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF?
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2020-11-19 06:47:51 Re: don't allocate HashAgg hash tables when running explain only