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, I would not
> go out of my way to make code changes to pursue this goal.
Well, it seems to make the users happy, so that's good enough for me.
There was particular concern from users about what values are returned
when multiple rules or multi-statement rules are fired, and ordering
them by ASCII order does give them the tools needed to get the job done.
We already order NAME by strcmp, so I don't see how we are breaking
anything by doing the same for rules.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073