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 perhaps speed.
But
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
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. Consequently,
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.
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 speed.
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 this work
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
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 Eisentraut
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,
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 rules
10 matches
Mail list logo
