From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
cc: Dan Wainwright <danw.cobus@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL Documentation <pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: RETURNING order guarantees documentation
In-reply-to: 
 <CAKFQuwbQqWHWdUDx+amZCZoQuK49R2EUS-npri2jBna4XRehPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CACTd0ws66eB=Nepy4nx3sr+fCdffVVgqd7KhYAxs+PR6HMo_=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKFQuwbQqWHWdUDx+amZCZoQuK49R2EUS-npri2jBna4XRehPw@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
	message dated "Sat, 04 May 2024 10:29:04 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2938692.1714845141.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sat, 04 May 2024 13:52:21 -0400
Message-ID: <2938693.1714845141@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2938693.1714845141%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, May 4, 2024, 10:13 Dan Wainwright <danw.cobus@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 'Similar to' doesn't provide anything concrete to the reader. There was=
 a thread
>> on [Hackers]
>> <https://www.mail-archive.com/pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org/msg253743.ht=
ml>
>> back in 2015 proposing some docs to clearly explain that ordering is
>> preserved and I am keen to write the documentation if it's agreed to be
>> worth doing.

> Haven't reviewed the discussions recently but my understanding is that t=
he
> lack of guarantee is correct and intentional.  There is none.

Indeed.  If you must have ordering you can do something like

with upd as (update foo set ... returning *)
select * from upd order by ...;

Otherwise it's going to be the order in which the rows were processed
by the ModifyTable node, which is intentionally unspecified.

The thread Dan refers to is here:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAMsr%2BYEn5TOuhv_tTwY70S1zXf8j=
CQ-uixU8aOs4OQs7kojf6Q%40mail.gmail.com

and it doesn't seem to have gone anywhere.  But I see that Craig
was really only concerned with whether INSERTs are processed in the
order returned by the data source, which is probably a pretty safe
assumption.  Still, SQL is a set-oriented language which means that
it generally doesn't guarantee anything about row order, with the
sole exception being the immediate output of a SELECT ... ORDER BY.
So I think adding such guarantees isn't a great idea.

			regards, tom lane