Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF?
Date
Msg-id 1251955.1605825778@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF?  (Joshua Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>)
Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF?  (John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: ERROR: too many dynamic shared memory segment
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: new heapcheck contrib module