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 so
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 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. Conse
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
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane writes:
> >> It looks like NAME comparison uses strcmp (actually strncmp). So it'll
> >> be numeric byte-code order.
> >> There's no particular reason we couldn't make that be strcoll instead,
> >> I suppose, except perhap
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> It looks like NAME comparison uses strcmp (actually strncmp). So it'll
>> be numeric byte-code order.
>> There's no particular reason we couldn't make that be strcoll instead,
>> I suppose, except perhaps speed.
> But how will th
Tom Lane writes:
> > But alphabetical? According to whose definition of the alphabet?
>
> It looks like NAME comparison uses strcmp (actually strncmp). So it'll
> be numeric byte-code order.
>
> There's no particular reason we couldn't make that be strcoll instead,
> I suppose, except perhaps s
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But alphabetical? According to whose definition of the alphabet?
It looks like NAME comparison uses strcmp (actually strncmp). So it'll
be numeric byte-code order.
There's no particular reason we couldn't make that be strcoll instead,
I suppose, e
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Unless Jan has an objection, I think alpha is best, because it matches
> trigger rule odering. That original rule ordering isn't something
> anyone is going to figure out on their own.
But alphabetical? According to whose definition of the alphabet?
--
Peter Eisentrau
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I just noticed that rewriteHandler.c contains a subroutine orderRules()
> that reorders the rules for a relation into the order
> non-instead rules
> qualified instead rules
> unqualified instead rules
> This conflicts with the feature we'd added to 7.3
Tom Lane wrote:
> I just noticed that rewriteHandler.c contains a subroutine orderRules()
> that reorders the rules for a relation into the order
> non-instead rules
> qualified instead rules
> unqualified instead rules
> This conflicts with the feature we'd added to 7.3 to fire
I just noticed that rewriteHandler.c contains a subroutine orderRules()
that reorders the rules for a relation into the order
non-instead rules
qualified instead rules
unqualified instead rules
This conflicts with the feature we'd added to 7.3 to fire rules in
alphabetical
11 matches
Mail list logo
