Re: Bizarre choice of case for RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Bizarre choice of case for RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE
Date: 2017-03-10 02:06:56
Message-ID: 20170310020656.fgnyxezogincj7up@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

> (And no, I don't especially
> approve of RELKIND_SEQUENCE being 'S' either, but it's far too late to
> change that.)

FWIW the reason SEQUENCE uses S instead of 's' is that the latter was
taken for "special" relations, which we removed a few releases ago
(commit 3a694bb0a1).

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2017-03-10 02:06:59 Re: GSOC Introduction / Eliminate O(N^2) scaling from rw-conflict tracking in serializable transactions
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-03-10 02:03:15 Re: contrib modules and relkind check