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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
