| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Add proper planner support for ORDER BY / DISTINCT aggregates |
| Date: | 2021-07-02 20:51:51 |
| Message-ID: | 1155682.1625259111@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> writes:
> On 2/07/21 8:39 pm, David Rowley wrote:
>> That's a good question. There was an argument in [1] that mentions
>> that there might be a group of people who rely on aggregation being
>> done in a certain order where they're not specifying an ORDER BY
>> clause in the aggregate. If that group of people exists, then it's
>> possible they might be upset in the scenario that you describe.
> So I think that pg has no obligation to protect the sensibilities of
> naive users in this case, especially at the expense of users that want
> queries to complete as quickly as possible. IMHO
I agree. We've broken such expectations in the past and I don't
have much hesitation about breaking them again.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-07-02 20:56:54 | Re: psql - factor out echo code |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-07-02 20:49:17 | Re: logical replication worker accesses catalogs in error context callback |