On 2016-09-02 09:41:28 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Andres Freund <andres@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