Tom Lane wrote:
> Here I've got to differ. The alphabetical-order rule was introduced to
> nail down the order of execution of operations that were going to happen
> in any case, but would otherwise have happened in an unspecified order.
> You are proposing to let it define what gets executed and what does not.
> I don't think that's a great idea --- for one thing, it raises the ante
> quite a bit as to whose idea of alphabetical order is definitive. But
> more importantly, such a change will certainly break existing
> applications, and you haven't offered a sufficiently compelling reason
> why we should do that.
I do think the behavior I outlined an improvement over how the system
behaves at present, but I agree it is probably not worth breaking
backward compatibility for.
-Neil
