| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ORDER BY 1 COLLATE |
| Date: | 2011-04-18 21:16:52 |
| Message-ID: | 4DAC63F4020000250003C977@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> It's likely to be used by SQL generators if nothing else, and I've
> been known to use it as a very convenient shorthand. It would seem
> to me like quite a strange inconsistency to allow order by n with
> some qualifiers but not others.
That's pretty much how I feel. Like SELECT * or an INSERT without a
target column list, I wouldn't want to see it used in production,
but it saves time when hacking around in a development database or
running ad hoc queries. If we didn't support it, the inconsistency
would be odd, and we would need to document it as a deviation from
the standard.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-04-18 21:20:21 | Still need mentor for advanced indexing project -- GSOC |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-04-18 21:02:53 | pgbench \for or similar loop |