Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Michael Tharp > <g...@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 <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
