Re: [HACKERS] A further thought on rule string size

wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) writes:
>> But we just required initdb for lztext. If we need another initdb
>> later, maybe we should do it?

That was what I was thinking, too. But...

> LZTEXT was a fairly limited change, tested out before and
> just reapplied. This time you ask for mucking with the family
> of node-print and -read functions. Even if it's a limited
> area of code affected, I don't feel comfortable doing it now.

Yeah, Jan is probably right --- too much risk of breaking something
and not noticing till after release. 7.0 will already allow longer
rules than 6.5 because of lztext, so it's not critical to do this now.
Let's wait.

regards, tom lane