David Rowley writes:
> You're right that OFFSET 0 would have been a better choice. I just
> wasn't aware that we were considering changing the code so we pull up
> subqueries with an ORDER BY.
No such plan is in the offing AFAIK, but it doesn't seem entirely
out of the question either.
> In fact
On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 at 12:37, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hmmm ... we have an agreed syntax for a subquery optimization fence,
> and that ain't it. I wouldn't count on this not breaking again in
> the future. Why not OFFSET 0, which is the usual method?
You're right that OFFSET 0 would have been a better
David Rowley writes:
> Here we add a simple ORDER BY to stop the planner from being able to
> pullup the lateral subquery.
Hmmm ... we have an agreed syntax for a subquery optimization fence,
and that ain't it. I wouldn't count on this not breaking again in
the future. Why not OFFSET 0, which i
