gnuoytr@rcn.com wrote:
> Spoken like a dyed in the wool COBOL coder. The RM has no need for order; it's set based. I've dabbled in PG for
sometime, and my sense is increasingly that PG developers are truly code oriented, not database (set) oriented.
>
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 helpful tone. 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
technical challenges behind actually implementing the behavior you'd
like to see; the concerns raised by Tom and Maciek make your idea
impractical even if it were desired. And for every person like yourself
who'd see the benefit you're looking for, there are far more that would
find a change in this area a major problem. The concerns around
breakage due to assumed but not required aspects of the relational model
are the ones the users of the software will be confused by, not the
developers of it. You have the classification wrong; the feedback
you've gotten here is from the developers being user oriented, not
theory oriented or code 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
