Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF?

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should we document IS [NOT] OF?
Date: 2020-11-19 14:02:00
Message-ID: 5cc61826-13e4-9976-0d6d-fb37b01d93ac@joeconway.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/19/20 2:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Is there a feature code? I skimmed the standard and non-standard tables in
>> our appendix and couldn’t find this in either.
>
> a19d9d3c4 seems to have thought it was S151.

Here is a link to previous list discussions:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/45DA44F3.3010401%40joeconway.com

HTH,

Joe

--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2020-11-19 14:04:59 Re: POC: postgres_fdw insert batching
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2020-11-19 13:24:23 Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions