From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: orderRules() now a bad idea? |
Date: | 2002-10-18 03:38:54 |
Message-ID: | 14323.1034912334@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> I'm confused; are you saying that NAME's sort behavior is good as-is?
>> If not, what would you have it do differently?
> What I am primarily saying is that ordering the rule execution order
> alphabetically is not a really good solution. Consequently, I would not
> go out of my way to make code changes to pursue this goal.
I think what you are really driving at is that you'd like to have some
other mechanism than choice-of-rule-name for users to determine ordering
of rule expansion. That's a fair enough objection, but you'd still need
to get rid of orderRules() along the way. Unless you *like* ordering
restrictions that were made purely for implementation convenience?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Philip Warner | 2002-10-18 03:42:24 | Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem? |
Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2002-10-18 03:33:54 | Various OS Binaries (Was: Re: v7.3 Branched ...) |