Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Michael Tharp
> <gxti@partiallystapled.com> wrote:
> > The funny thing is, it doesn't seem to be a compatibility break because the
> > code in readfuncs.c that parses the node strings ignores the field names
> > entirely because it assumes they are in a particular order. It also isn't
> > much work to change the output because the code is, with the exception of a
> > few weirdos, all at the top of outfuncs.c, and the weirdos are also
> > dispersed within that file.
>
> Yeah, I think that's basically all true.
>
> > However, I'm no longer convinced that using a serialized node tree is the
> > way to go for my use case, nor am I particularly sure that it even matches
> > my use case at all anymore as I keep simplifying the goals as time goes on.
> > I won't be able to make any compelling arguments until I figure out what I
> > need :-)
>
> However this is, as you say, a fairly damning point. :-)
>
> Bruce, I think we should not have a TODO for this until the OP (or
> someone) can address this issue a bit better.
OK, removed.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
