On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 07:38:36PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes: > > The issue is whether anything you want to ORDER BY needs to be > > described by an B-tree operator class, and hence have a real sort > > function. > > I think it's reasonable to remove that feature, *after* we provide > a workable substitute. So, "no" to both questions ...
Hmm. By feature I assume you mean "ORDER BY ... USING" (which no-one could find an example of) and not "requiring the operator to be part of an opclass". The only people affected would be people who defined a less-than operator but no operator class, which you said yourself would probably just be encouraging programmer lazyness. I wasn't suggesting removing the ORDER BY ... USING syntax, just these two options from the sorting routines. In fact, I don't think we ever need to remove the syntax, just as long as the operator is part of an operator class, it'll be fine. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a > tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone > else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.
pgpiZF30UI8xD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
