Re: any way for ORDER BY x to imply NULLS FIRST in 8.3?

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@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +