Re: general purpose array_sort - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: general purpose array_sort
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwZQMxp5WL2FYTogvH2vhpE2eaqY_nCJQAzarNd_zzJnwg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: general purpose array_sort  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: general purpose array_sort
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 9:06 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
This business with a textual representation of a sort clause seems like
over-engineering ... except that it's also under-engineered, because
the parsing is lame and incomplete.  (No USING option, and the fact
that collation comes from somewhere else seems impossibly confusing.)
Let's drop that.

I can accept this outcome though an optional three-valued boolean sort order (ascending and descending only) I'd argue is worth keeping.  null value placement too I guess, three-valued boolean (nulls_first).

David J.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: general purpose array_sort
Next
From: Daniel Gustafsson
Date:
Subject: Re: Retire support for OpenSSL 1.1.1 due to raised API requirements