Horton

Re: general purpose array_sort

Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>
To: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>, Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com>, jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>, "andreas@proxel.se" <andreas@proxel.se>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Date: 2024-10-24T17:18:55Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Hi,

> 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).

Perhaps these optional arguments deserve separate discussions. I
suggest merging something everyone agrees on first. This will simplify
the review process and allow us to deliver value to the users quickly.
Arguments like `reverse => true` and `nulls_first => true` can always
be implemented and added as separate patches.

-- 
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev

Commits

  1. Introduce a SQL-callable function array_sort(anyarray).

  2. Fix ARRAY_SUBLINK and ARRAY[] for int2vector and oidvector input.

  3. Re-implement the ereport() macro using __VA_ARGS__.