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

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF?
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwbpettZ+Ffgvvyrr5gyZLuC28f=mkVqLpNrXAz3DnJ3Kg@mail.gmail.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 Wednesday, November 18, 2020, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
I wrote:
> So my vote would be to rip it out, not document it.  Somebody can try
> again in future, perhaps.  But if we document it we're just locking
> ourselves into a SQL incompatibility.

Apparently, somebody already had that thought.  See func.sgml
lines 765-782, which were commented out by 8272fc3f7.


Is there a feature code? I skimmed the standard and non-standard tables in our appendix and couldn’t find this in either.

David J.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: don't allocate HashAgg hash tables when running explain only
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF?