Should we document IS [NOT] OF?

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Should we document IS [NOT] OF?
Date: 2020-11-19 05:44:24
Message-ID: CAKFQuwZ2pTc-DSkOiTfjauqLYkNREeNZvWmeg12Q-_69D+sYZA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hackers,

Over in news [1] Josh Drake and Eric Ridge discovered the undocumented
feature "IS [NOT] OF"; introduced seemingly as an "oh-by-the-way" in 2002
via commit eb121ba2cfe [2].

Is there any reason not to document this back to 9.5, probably with a note
nearby to pg_typeof(any), which is a convoluted but documented way of
making this kind of test?

David J.

[1] https://www.commandprompt.com/blog/is-of/
[2]
https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commit/eb121ba2cfe1dba9463301f612743df9b63e35ce

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2020-11-19 05:49:42 Re: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist
Previous Message Andres Freund 2020-11-19 05:42:02 Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries