Simon Riggs wrote: > If an application has already made that choice then we should allow them > the opportunity to work with PostgreSQL. The application may be at > fault, but PostgreSQL is the loser because of that decision. > > The SQL Standard says that the default for this is defined by the > implementation; that doesn't bar us from changing the implementation if > we wish. We can do that without changing PostgreSQL's historic default. > > Perhaps we can have a parameter? > > default_null_sorting = 'last' # may alternatively be set to 'first' > > (or another wording/meaning.) > > That is what I thought you'd implemented, otherwise I would have > suggested this myself way back. This new parameter would be a small > change, but will make a major difference to application portability. > > This seems like the key to unlocking your new functionality for most > people. You already have that control at the SQL SELECT level so you are just avoiding typing to add the GUC parameter. I think we need more requests for such a feature before we add it. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
