On 2016-09-02 07:11:10 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-09-02 09:05:35 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 3:31 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 3:10 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > > >> =# SELECT * FROM few, ROWS FROM(generate_series(1,3)); > > >> ┌────┬─────────────────┐ > > >> │ id │ generate_series │ > > >> ├────┼─────────────────┤ > > >> │ 1 │ 1 │ > > >> │ 2 │ 1 │ > > >> │ 1 │ 2 │ > > >> │ 2 │ 2 │ > > >> │ 1 │ 3 │ > > >> │ 2 │ 3 │ > > >> └────┴─────────────────┘ > > >> (6 rows) > > >> surely isn't what was intended. So the join order needs to be enforced. > > > > > > In general, we've been skeptical about giving any guarantees about > > > result ordering. > > Well, it's historically how we behaved for SRFs. I'm pretty sure that > people will be confused if > SELECT generate_series(1, 10) FROM sometbl; > suddenly returns rows in an order that reverse from what > generate_series() returns.
Oh, and we've previously re-added that based on complaints. C.f. d543170f2fdd6d9845aaf91dc0f6be7a2bf0d9e7 (and others IIRC). -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
