Hi Prashant, Thank you for the review and the testing. I only saw it after I had sent v2, which is why v2 does not mention it.
> One coverage suggestion: the report names generated columns and > BEGIN ATOMIC function bodies as silently corrupted stored > expressions, but the tests exercise views only. Good point. If Tom's review calls for a new version, I will add a round-trip test for a generated column along with it. v2 also records the cast in the parser, as Tom suggested, but the ruleutils.c change you reviewed is still there as 0004 with the same logic, so your checks of it still apply. Best regards, Henson
