Re: orderRules() now a bad idea?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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: 2002-10-17 19:17:07
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0210171843280.928-100000@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-10-17 19:17:09 Re: orderRules() now a bad idea?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-10-17 18:57:12 Re: COPY syntax