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

From Joe Conway
Subject Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF?
Date
Msg-id 1fdea5e4-3592-b6a6-a99d-7423308c31d5@joeconway.com
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?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 11/19/20 12:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.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


Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal: possibility to read dumped table's name from file
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF?