Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

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

From David G. Johnston
Subject Should we document IS [NOT] OF?
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwZ2pTc-DSkOiTfjauqLYkNREeNZvWmeg12Q-_69D+sYZA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view
Hackers,

Over in news [1] Josh Drake and Eric Ridge discovered the undocumented feature "IS [NOT] OF"; introduced seemingly as an "oh-by-the-way" in 2002 via commit eb121ba2cfe [2].

Is there any reason not to document this back to 9.5, probably with a note nearby to pg_typeof(any), which is a convoluted but documented way of making this kind of test?

David J.

[1] https://www.commandprompt.com/blog/is-of/
[2] https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commit/eb121ba2cfe1dba9463301f612743df9b63e35ce

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist