| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: orderRules() now a bad idea? |
| Date: | 2002-10-17 19:17:07 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0210171843280.928-100000@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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 peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-17 19:17:09 | Re: orderRules() now a bad idea? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-17 18:57:12 | Re: COPY syntax |