Re: machine-readable explain output

Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>   
>> On 06/16/2009 04:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>     
>>> Note that even in this case we DON'T rely on the ordering of the
>>> nodes.  The inner<plan>  nodes have child nodes which contain their
>>> relationship to the parent.
>>>       
>
>   
>> Not in the case of Append nodes, but I fail to see a problem there, so...
>>     
>
> The order of Append child nodes is in fact significant.  If this
> representation loses that information then it needs to be fixed.
> However, is it really so bad to be relying on node order for this?
>
>             
>   

No, if there is a genuine sequence of items then relying on node order 
is just fine. My earlier (mistaken) reference was to possibly relying on 
node order for a non-sequence relationship.

cheers

andrew