Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>> select nextval('temp_counter'), * from (select .... order by ...);
> >>
> >> Approximately the same solution, but without saving the result in a temp
> >> table.
>
> > I thought about doing it this way. However, a subselect as a
> > pseudotable is not guaranteed to return the data in any specific order,
> > so I don't think this method work work reliably.
>
> Say what? Given the ORDER BY in the subselect, it will.
>
> Of course, you can't do any grouping or other processing at the outer
> level, but the example as given is just fine.
When you specify a table in FROM, there is no ordering to the table. Is
it guaranteed that a subquery in FROM _does_ have an ordering. Does
ANSI say it has an ordering? What if the subquery is involved in a
join?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
