Re: Bizarre choice of case for RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE

I wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Is there a good reason why RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE is 'P' not 'p'?

>> I can't muster a lot of outrage about this one way or another. One
>> possible advantage of 'P' is that there are fewer places where 'P' is
>> mentioned in the source code than 'p'.

> Hm, one would hope that the vast majority of code references are neither
> of those, but rather "RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE". information_schema.sql
> and system_views.sql will need to be gone over carefully, certainly, but
> we shouldn't be hard-coding this anywhere that there's a reasonable
> alternative.

Pushed. I was a bit disappointed to find that make check-world passed
just fine without having updated either information_schema.sql or
system_views.sql. Evidently our test coverage for these views leaves
something to be desired.

regards, tom lane