On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: >> Oh, and we've previously re-added that based on >> complaints. C.f. d543170f2fdd6d9845aaf91dc0f6be7a2bf0d9e7 (and others >> IIRC). > > That one wasn't about row order per se, but I agree that people *will* > bitch if we change the behavior, especially if we don't provide a way > to fix it.
They might also bitch if you add any overhead to put rows in a specific order when they subsequently sort the rows into some different order. You might even destroy an order that would have allowed a sort step to be skipped, so you would pay twice -- once to put them into some "implied" order and then to sort them back into the order they would have had without that extra effort. > ORDER BY is not a useful suggestion when there is nothing > you could order by to get the old behavior. I'm apparently missing something, because I see a column with the header "generate_series" in the result set. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers