| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, 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 16:47:54 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZQMxp5WL2FYTogvH2vhpE2eaqY_nCJQAzarNd_zzJnwg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 9:06 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> This business with a textual representation of a sort clause seems like
> over-engineering ... except that it's also under-engineered, because
> the parsing is lame and incomplete. (No USING option, and the fact
> that collation comes from somewhere else seems impossibly confusing.)
> Let's drop that.
>
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).
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2024-10-24 17:00:52 | Re: Retire support for OpenSSL 1.1.1 due to raised API requirements |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-10-24 16:06:32 | Re: general purpose array_sort |