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?

Reply via email to