Hi, On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 06:25:22AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 5:42 AM Shay Rojansky <r...@roji.org> wrote: > > > FWIW I've received feedback from a SQL Server engineer that one definitely > > should *not* depend on such ordering there, and that future optimizations > > (e.g. parallel insertion of many rows) could result in row ordering which > > differs from the lexical ordering of the VALUES clause. > > > > > > That seems very reasonable; if the situation is similar on PostgreSQL, > > then I'd suggest making that very clear in the INSERT[2] and UPDATE[3] docs. > > > > There is clearly no mention of such a guarantee in our documentation.
Yes, which is just how SQL works: a set doesn't have any ordering unless an explicit one has been defined, RETURNING is no exception to that.
