| From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [patch] Proposal for \crosstabview in psql |
| Date: | 2016-02-09 11:36:55 |
| Message-ID: | CAEZATCWUp32zFRkmkfQzf_ePFJ-T0D1PFa2L33UAZwx62dpQZg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9 February 2016 at 11:06, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> + respect SQL clauses ordering, allows pretty complex ORDER BY clause
That, to me is the key point. SQL already allows very powerful
sorting, so psql should not just throw away the query's sort order and
replace it with something much more basic and limited. The exact
syntax can be debated, but I don't think psql should be doing row
sorting.
I also don't believe that extending the +/- sort syntax to support
more advanced options will be particularly easy, and the result is
likely to be even less readable. It also requires the user to learn
another syntax, when they will already be familiar with SQL's sort
syntax.
Regards,
Dean
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-02-09 12:11:06 | Re: Existence check for suitable index in advance when concurrently refreshing. |
| Previous Message | Jeevan Chalke | 2016-02-09 11:30:00 | Re: postgres_fdw join pushdown (was Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs) |