From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling) |
Date: | 2016-09-02 15:31:57 |
Message-ID: | 20160902153157.r5nfamzr24yx3gaf@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-09-02 09:41:28 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> >> Oh, and we've previously re-added that based on
> >> complaints. C.f. d543170f2fdd6d9845aaf91dc0f6be7a2bf0d9e7 (and others
> >> IIRC).
> >
> > That one wasn't about row order per se, but I agree that people *will*
> > bitch if we change the behavior, especially if we don't provide a way
> > to fix it.
>
> They might also bitch if you add any overhead to put rows in a
> specific order when they subsequently sort the rows into some
> different order.
Huh? It's just the order the SRFs are returning rows. If they
subsequently ORDER, there's no issue. And that doesn't have a
performance impact afaict.
> You might even destroy an order that would have
> allowed a sort step to be skipped, so you would pay twice -- once
> to put them into some "implied" order and then to sort them back
> into the order they would have had without that extra effort.
So you're arguing that you can't rely on order, but that users rely on
order?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2016-09-02 15:42:49 | Re: pg_basebackup, pg_receivexlog and data durability (was: silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions) |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-09-02 15:29:37 | Re: Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling) |