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 "s
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 'P' is that there are fewer places where 'P'
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, which we removed a few releas
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).
--
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 use the symbolic names.
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, but
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 instituted the
> policy, pg_dump refers to rel
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 about this one way or another. One
>> possible advantage of 'P'
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 Support
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 there are fewer places where 'P' is
> mentioned
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 RELKIND_SEQUENCE being '
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, i
12 matches
Mail list logo