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

From John Naylor
Subject Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF?
Date
Msg-id CAFBsxsEZiSn1wCUdLYn-tUeWX3K5Ca=Au-AfCghijm5ghOfMDQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 6:43 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
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.

Documenting or improving IS OF was a TODO, so I've removed that entry.

--
John Naylor
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company 

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Sergei Kornilov
Date:
Subject: Re: Improve handling of parameter differences in physical replication
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: jit and explain nontext