Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org