| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Issue with NULLS LAST, with postgres_fdw sort pushdown |
| Date: | 2016-03-04 16:40:44 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ-YCSjOHMN3RHfrygkW_k-CKo1gq_OA+uPLchxy2C6jw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:08 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>>> Per explain.c, this looks inconsistent to me. Shouldn't NULLS LAST be
>>> applied only if DESC is used in this ORDER BY clause?
>
>> ... In this case we are constructing a query to be
>> sent to the foreign server and it's better not to leave the defaults to be
>> interpreted by the foreign server; in case it interprets them in different
>> fashion. get_rule_orderby() also explicitly adds these options.
>
> Yeah, I agree that we don't need to go out of our way to make the query
> succinct here. Explicitness is easier and safer too, so why not?
+1. So, committed Ashutosh's version.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-03-04 16:46:33 | Re: GetExistingLocalJoinPath() vs. the docs |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-03-04 16:31:42 | Re: Relation extension scalability |