Re: [HACKERS] A further thought on rule string size - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [HACKERS] A further thought on rule string size
Date
Msg-id 200002280828.DAA19846@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] A further thought on rule string size  (wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck))
Responses Re: [HACKERS] A further thought on rule string size
List pgsql-hackers
> > > Removing the labels would actually save code in readfuncs.c, which
> > > wouldn't have to skip over them.  In outfuncs.c, we could either
> > > have every node-writing subroutine know about two output modes, or
> > > make a post-pass that strips anything that looks like a field label.
> > > The latter would be less maintenance work in the long run.
> > >
> > > Comments?
> >
> > If you could keep the labels just for EXPLAIN, go for it.
> 
>     Not right now, put it onto TODO for after 7.0.

But we just required initdb for lztext.  If we need another initdb
later, maybe we should do it?

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] update_pg_pwd trigger does not work very well
Next
From: wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] A further thought on rule string size