| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bizarre choice of case for RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE |
| Date: | 2017-03-07 23:03:38 |
| Message-ID: | 8913.1488927818@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neha Khatri | 2017-03-07 23:22:56 | Re: [NOVICE] opr_charset rule in gram.y |
| Previous Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2017-03-07 22:31:26 | Re: [HACKERS] Statement-level rollback |