Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2015-09-15 19:16:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> readfuncs.c doesn't actually stop to verify that the field name in stored
>> rules is what it expects.
> This reminds me: Is there a reason for that? ISTM that adding checks for
> the field names would make error messages about borked stored trees much
> easier to understand?
Dunno, how often have you seen such an error message, and how much would
it help anyway? I'm not sure it'd be worth the code and cycles to check.
regards, tom lane