From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Tobias Wendorff <tobias.wendorff@tu-dortmund.de>
cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #17071: ORDER BY gets ignored when result set has only one
 row, but another one gets added by rollup()
In-reply-to: <6574e1c6-fcb6-62fb-9de4-c9005feac87d@tu-dortmund.de>
References: <17071-24dc13fbfa29672d@postgresql.org>
 <2350897.1624476008@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <6574e1c6-fcb6-62fb-9de4-c9005feac87d@tu-dortmund.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Tobias Wendorff <tobias.wendorff@tu-dortmund.de>
	message dated "Wed, 23 Jun 2021 21:40:26 +0200"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2450336.1624484905.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 17:48:25 -0400
Message-ID: <2450337.1624484905@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2450337.1624484905%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Tobias Wendorff <tobias.wendorff@tu-dortmund.de> writes:
> To keep a long discussion short: you classify it as a wontfix.
> Since I've already supplied a workaround (using a subquery or CTE),
> let's close it.

[ shrug... ]  If you intend to take such a totally uncooperative
approach, then I can't help you.

I did *not* say this is a "wontfix".  I said it's not easy to fix.
There is a large difference.  What I was wondering about was whether
we could find an easier change that would help your actual use-case.
But, since you're not seeing fit to provide further detail, you'll
just have to wait till we can create a fix for the case as presented.
That's likely to be a year or two down the pike.

			regards, tom lane