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. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
