Re: [HACKERS] Bizarre choice of case for RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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.

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.

(And protocol message types don't even have defined constants.  Uggh.)

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company