I can't tell if you meant for this to be insulting or my reading it that way is wrong, but it certainly wasn't put in a
helpfultone. Let me summarize for you. You've been told that putting ORDER BY into a view is a generally poor idea
anyway,that it's better to find ways avoid this class of concern altogether. There are significant non-obvious
technicalchallenges behind actually implementing the behavior you'd like to see; the concerns raised by Tom and Maciek
makeyour idea impractical even if it were desired. And for every person like yourself who'd see the benefit you're
lookingfor, there are far more that would find a change in this area a major problem. The concerns around breakage due
toassumed but not required aspects of the relational model are the ones the users of the software will be confused by,
notthe developers of it. You have the classification wrong; the feedback you've gotten here is from the developers
beinguser oriented, not theory oriented or
c!
ode oriented.
--
Greg Smith, 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support www.2ndQuadrant.us
Author, "PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance" Pre-ordering at:
https://www.packtpub.com/postgresql-9-0-high-performance/book
Not insulting, just amused bemusement. PG portrays itself as the best OS database, which it may well be. But it does
soby stressing the row-by-agonizing-row approach to data. In other words, as just a record paradigm filestore for
COBOL/java/Ccoders. I was expecting more Relational oomph. As Dr. Codd says: "A Relational Model of Data for Large
SharedData Banks". Less code, more data.
robert
