| From: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | markMLl(dot)pgsql-general(at)telemetry(dot)co(dot)uk, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Nulls in timestamps |
| Date: | 2005-07-13 18:15:58 |
| Message-ID: | 1121278558.8208.257.camel@state.g2switchworks.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 12:41, Tom Lane wrote:
> markMLl(dot)pgsql-general(at)telemetry(dot)co(dot)uk writes:
> > Where does PostgreSQL rank nulls when sorting a column of timestamps, is this
> > behaviour deterministic, and can I rely on it not changing in the future?
>
> Nulls sort high (in any datatype, not only timestamps). It's possible
> that we'd offer an option to make them sort low in the future, but I
> can't imagine that we'd change the default behavior.
Isn't this behaviour implementation dependent, i.e. other database could
do it anyway they wanted? Just thinking of portability issues one might
have if one were to rely on null sort order in an application.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-13 18:25:35 | Re: Nulls in timestamps |
| Previous Message | markMLl.pgsql-general | 2005-07-13 18:15:12 | Re: Nulls in timestamps |