From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Timmer, Marius" <marius(dot)timmer(at)uni-muenster(dot)de> |
Cc: | Arne Scheffer <scheffa(at)uni-muenster(dot)de>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, pgsql-hackerspostgresqlorg <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] explain sortorder |
Date: | 2015-01-19 16:09:34 |
Message-ID: | 27093.1421683774@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Timmer, Marius" <marius(dot)timmer(at)uni-muenster(dot)de> writes:
> We think, you wanted to switch to DESC behavior
> (print out NULLS FIRST) in cases, where
> USING uses an operator which is considered to be
> a DESC operator.
Right, because that's how addTargetToSortList() would parse it.
> But get_equality_op_for_ordering_op is called in
> cases, where reverse is false, but
> the part
> if (reverse)
> *reverse = (strategy == BTGreaterStrategyNumber);
> never changes this to true?
Sorry, not following? It's true that what I added to explain.c doesn't
worry too much about the possibility of get_ordering_op_properties()
failing --- that really shouldn't happen for something that was previously
accepted as a sorting operator. But if it does, "reverse" will just be
left as false, so the behavior will anyway be unsurprising I think.
We could alternatively make it throw a "cache lookup failed" error but
I'm not sure how that makes anyone's life better.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2015-01-19 16:14:05 | Re: proposal: disallow operator "=>" and use it for named parameters |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-01-19 16:05:22 | Re: WITH CHECK and Column-Level Privileges |