Re: PG14: "is of" vs pg_typeof - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Karsten Hilbert
Subject Re: PG14: "is of" vs pg_typeof
Date
Msg-id YmRjO+rzHdcfJi9W@hermes.hilbert.loc
Whole thread Raw
In response to PG14: "is of" vs pg_typeof  (Karsten Hilbert <Karsten.Hilbert@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: PG14: "is of" vs pg_typeof  (Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>)
List pgsql-general
Am Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 10:14:03PM +0200 schrieb Karsten Hilbert:

> I can't find anything in the changelog saying that "is of"
> was removed. For what it's worth, nothing in the docs ever
> said it existed either (though it did, as per real life).

Oh, wait,

    https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1129826.1605805700@sss.pgh.pa.us

is that it ?  It is gone ?

Alright, alright,

    https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1052846.1605802012@sss.pgh.pa.us

I am rewriting my code already. Interesting how one discovers
the proper search strategy only eventually, *after* asking for
help.

Anyway, so there, "IS OF" (the old PG one, at any rate) is
gone.

Thanks,
Karsten
--
GPG  40BE 5B0E C98E 1713 AFA6  5BC0 3BEA AC80 7D4F C89B



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: SELECT creates millions of temp files in a single directory
Next
From: Adrian Klaver
Date:
Subject: Re: PG14: "is of" vs pg_typeof