On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 04:33:32PM -0000, Andrew - Supernews wrote: > On 2005-12-29, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, no, that's not the problem: the problem is that you should be able > > to specify ORDER BY any sort ordering that the system can deal with, and > > the USING syntax is in fact too impoverished to do that. What if the > > mentioned operator is in more than one operator class? I believe that > > ATM the code makes a random choice of which opclass' sort function to > > use, which pretty much sucks. > > Does it matter? How would the same operator specify different orderings > in different operator classes, given that it must be a strict weak ordering > for sorting to even work, and such an ordering is completely determined by > either one of its greater-than/less-than operators?
Well, we currently don't forbid it and indeed encourage it (by encouraging reverse operator classes) as the only way to handle the ORDER a, b DESC case right now. I don't think I can find any other examples right now. I don't think I'd have a problem with forbidding it at some future date. 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.
pgpWfmh0w16LM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
