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 5cc61826-13e4-9976-0d6d-fb37b01d93ac@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 2:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
>> Is there a feature code? I skimmed the standard and non-standard tables in
>> our appendix and couldn’t find this in either.
>
> a19d9d3c4 seems to have thought it was S151.

Here is a link to previous list discussions:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/45DA44F3.3010401%40joeconway.com

HTH,

Joe

--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development


Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Next
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: POC: postgres_fdw insert batching