Re: [PATCH] Enforce that INSERT...RETURNING preserves the order of multi rows - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: [PATCH] Enforce that INSERT...RETURNING preserves the order of multi rows
Date
Msg-id 201210211836.33167.andres@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Re: [PATCH] Enforce that INSERT...RETURNING preserves the order of multi rows  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Enforce that INSERT...RETURNING preserves the order of multi rows  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sunday, October 21, 2012 06:30:14 PM Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 10/21/2012 12:20 PM, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> > At 2012-10-21 11:49:26 -0400, cbbrowne@gmail.com wrote:
> >> If there is a natural sequence (e.g. - a value assigned by nextval()),
> >> that offers a natural place to apply the usual order-imposing ORDER BY
> >> that we are expected to use elsewhere.
> >
> > Note: "INSERT … RETURNING" doesn't accept an ORDER BY clause.
>
> No, but you can wrap the INSERT .. RETURNING in a CTE and order that.

Personally I find that a not very practical suggestion. It means you need the
ability to sort the data equivalently on the clientside which isn't always
easy if you consider platform/locale and whatever differences.

Suggesting nextval() doesn't strike me as very practical either because it
means that you either need a separate roundtrip to the server to get a bunch
of new ids which you then can assign to the to-be-inserted rows or you need
the ability to match the returned rows to the inserted rows somehow. Thats not
always easy.

Andres
--
Andres Freund        http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: No, pg_size_pretty(numeric) was not such a hot idea
Next
From: "P. Christeas"
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] Enforce that INSERT...RETURNING preserves the order of multi rows