On 2016-09-02 09:41:28 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
