Re: Removing SORTFUNC_LT/REVLT

On 2005-12-29, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Well, no, that's not the problem: the problem is that you should be able
> to specify ORDER BY any sort ordering that the system can deal with, and
> the USING syntax is in fact too impoverished to do that. What if the
> mentioned operator is in more than one operator class? I believe that
> ATM the code makes a random choice of which opclass' sort function to
> use, which pretty much sucks.

Does it matter? How would the same operator specify different orderings
in different operator classes, given that it must be a strict weak ordering
for sorting to even work, and such an ordering is completely determined by
either one of its greater-than/less-than operators?

--
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services