Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> 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. Consequently, I would not
> go out of my way to make code changes to pursue this goal.
I think what you are really driving at is that you'd like to have some
other mechanism than choice-of-rule-name for users to determine ordering
of rule expansion. That's a fair enough objection, but you'd still need
to get rid of orderRules() along the way. Unless you *like* ordering
restrictions that were made purely for implementation convenience?
regards, tom lane
