On 2015-09-15 19:16:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> readfuncs.c doesn't actually stop to verify that the field name in stored
> rules is what it expects.
This reminds me: Is there a reason for that? ISTM that adding checks for
the field names would make error messages about borked stored trees much
easier to understand?
Greetings,
Andres Freund