2015-01-05 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > What would make sense to me is to teach the planner about inlining > SQL functions that include ORDER BY clauses, so that the performance > issue of a double sort could be avoided entirely transparently to > the user.
Another way of getting to the point where the extra check-node is not needed in obvious cases, would be: * Apply the current patch in some form. * Later, add code that analyzes the query inside the function. If it turns out that the result of the analysis implies the declared order, don't add the check-node. The analysis can in principle also be performed for other languages, but that would most likely be way more complex for the typical "Turing complete" languages. Nicolas -- A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion. Q. Why is top posting bad? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
