| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
| Subject: | Re: Re: Patch to add functionality to specify ORDER BY in CREATE FUNCTION for SRFs | 
| Date: | 2015-01-05 17:54:41 | 
| Message-ID: | 1330.1420480481@sss.pgh.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Atri Sharma wrote
>> If order of result rows is not the same as required, an error is raised:
>> 
>> SELECT * FROM incorrect_order_nulls() ORDER BY e NULLS LAST;
>> ERROR:  Order not same as specified
> First reaction for the error was unfavorable but (see below) it likely is
> the best option and does adequately cover the reason for failure -
> programmer error.
TBH, my first reaction to this entire patch is unfavorable: it's a
solution in search of a problem.  It adds substantial complication not
only for users but for PG developers in order to solve a rather narrow
performance issue.
What would make sense to me is to teach the planner about inlining
SQL functions that include ORDER BY clauses, so that the performance
issue of a double sort could be avoided entirely transparently to
the user.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2015-01-05 17:59:34 | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments | 
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-01-05 17:54:02 | INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE and RLS |