Re: [HACKERS] Bizarre choice of case for RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:06:56PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > 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

Re: [HACKERS] Bizarre choice of case for RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE

I wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Tom Lane 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

Re: [HACKERS] Bizarre choice of case for RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE

Alvaro Herrera writes: > 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,

Re: [HACKERS] Bizarre choice of case for RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE

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). --

Re: [HACKERS] Bizarre choice of case for RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE

I wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> For reasons which must've seemed good to whoever instituted the >> policy, pg_dump refers to relkinds using the bare letters rather than >> the constants. > Even in pg_dump, it appears to me that the large majority of relkind > references

Re: [HACKERS] Bizarre choice of case for RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE

On 2017/03/08 2:55, Tom Lane wrote: > Is there a good reason why RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE is 'P' not 'p'? > It looks rather out of place considering that seven of the eight > pre-existing relkind codes are lower case. (And no, I don't especially > approve of RELKIND_SEQUENCE being 'S' either,

Re: [HACKERS] Bizarre choice of case for RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE

Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Hm, one would hope that the vast majority of code references are neither >> of those, but rather "RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE". > For reasons which must've seemed good to whoever

Re: [HACKERS] Bizarre choice of case for RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Is there a good reason why RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE is 'P' not 'p'? > >> I can't muster a lot of outrage

Re: [HACKERS] Bizarre choice of case for RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE

On 3/7/17 12:55, Tom Lane wrote: > Is there a good reason why RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE is 'P' not 'p'? I was confused about this too. If there is no argument against it, I would favor changing it. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7

Re: [HACKERS] Bizarre choice of case for RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE

Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Tom Lane 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

Re: [HACKERS] Bizarre choice of case for RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Is there a good reason why RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE is 'P' not 'p'? > It looks rather out of place considering that seven of the eight > pre-existing relkind codes are lower case. (And no, I don't especially > approve of

[HACKERS] Bizarre choice of case for RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE

Is there a good reason why RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE is 'P' not 'p'? It looks rather out of place considering that seven of the eight pre-existing relkind codes are lower case. (And no, I don't especially approve of RELKIND_SEQUENCE being 'S' either, but it's far too late to change that.) Also,