Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF?
Date: 2020-11-19 20:14:08
Message-ID: 1214845.1605816848@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> On 11/19/20 12:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Here's a proposed patch for that. I was amused to discover that we have
>> a couple of regression test cases making use of IS OF.

> I didn't check but those might be my fault ;-)

I suspect at least one of them is mine ;-). But I didn't check.

> Looks good to me.

Thanks for looking!

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2020-11-19 20:43:26 Re: Issue with server side statement-level rollback
Previous Message Joe Conway 2020-11-19 20:09:39 Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF?