I wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Is there a good reason why RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE is 'P' not 'p'?
>> I can't muster a lot of outrage about this one way or another. One
>> possible advantage of 'P' is that there are fewer places where 'P' is
>> mentioned in the source code than 'p'.
> Hm, one would hope that the vast majority of code references are neither
> of those, but rather "RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE". information_schema.sql
> and system_views.sql will need to be gone over carefully, certainly, but
> we shouldn't be hard-coding this anywhere that there's a reasonable
> alternative.
Pushed. I was a bit disappointed to find that make check-world passed
just fine without having updated either information_schema.sql or
system_views.sql. Evidently our test coverage for these views leaves
something to be desired.
regards, tom lane
