| From: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, "andreas(at)proxel(dot)se" <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: general purpose array_sort |
| Date: | 2024-10-24 17:18:55 |
| Message-ID: | CAJ7c6TObx5rBcxuQzzj=4s09VcKXnzpDO1ObvP3gJyeBGV_a-Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
> I can accept this outcome though an optional three-valued boolean sort order (ascending and descending only) I'd argue is worth keeping. null value placement too I guess, three-valued boolean (nulls_first).
Perhaps these optional arguments deserve separate discussions. I
suggest merging something everyone agrees on first. This will simplify
the review process and allow us to deliver value to the users quickly.
Arguments like `reverse => true` and `nulls_first => true` can always
be implemented and added as separate patches.
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-10-24 18:32:26 | Re: Using Expanded Objects other than Arrays from plpgsql |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2024-10-24 17:00:52 | Re: Retire support for OpenSSL 1.1.1 due to raised API requirements |