Re: [PATCH] Enforce that INSERT...RETURNING preserves the order of multi rows

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Enforce that INSERT...RETURNING preserves the order of multi rows
Date: 2012-10-21 17:24:52
Message-ID: 50842FE4.8080509@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 10/21/2012 12:36 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> 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(at)gmail(dot)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.

Er, what?

with orig_inserts as
(
insert into table_1
...
returning *
),
ordered_inserts as
(
select * from orig_inserts
order by ...
)
insert into table_2
select * from ordered_inserts ...;

why does the client have to be involved, exactly?

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-10-21 17:28:44 Re: Re: [PATCH] Enforce that INSERT...RETURNING preserves the order of multi rows
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-10-21 16:49:03 Re: Successor of MD5 authentication, let's use SCRAM