sort order down into planner, instead of handling it only at the very top
level of the planner.  This fixes many things.  An explicit sort is now
avoided if there is a cheaper alternative (typically an indexscan) not
only for ORDER BY, but also for the internal sort of GROUP BY.  It works
even when there is no other reason (such as a WHERE condition) to consider
the indexscan.  It works for indexes on functions.  It works for indexes
on functions, backwards.  It's just so cool...

CAUTION: I have changed the representation of SortClause nodes, therefore
THIS UPDATE BREAKS STORED RULES.  You will need to initdb.

store all ordering information in pathkeys lists (which are now lists of
lists of PathKeyItem nodes, not just lists of lists of vars).  This was
a big win --- the code is smaller and IMHO more understandable than it
was, even though it handles more cases.  I believe the node changes will
not force an initdb for anyone; planner nodes don't show up in stored
rules.

> >
> > was implemented by Jan Wieck.
> > His work is for ascending order cases.
> >
> > Here is a patch to prevent sorting also in descending
> > order cases.
> > Because I had already changed _bt_first() to position
> > backward correctly before v6.5,this patch would work.
> >
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp

detected this omission before.  Miscellaneous other cleanups.

identified by Hiroshi (incorrect cost attributed to OR clauses
after multiple passes through set_rest_selec()).  I think the code
was trying to allow selectivities of OR subclauses to be passed in
from outside, but noplace was actually passing any useful data, and
set_rest_selec() was passing wrong data.

Restructure representation of "indexqual" in IndexPath nodes so that
it is the same as for indxqual in completed IndexScan nodes: namely,
a toplevel list with an entry for each pass of the index scan, having
sublists that are implicitly-ANDed index qual conditions for that pass.
You don't want to know what the old representation was :-(

Improve documentation of OR-clause indexscan functions.

Remove useless 'notclause' field from RestrictInfo nodes.  (This might
force an initdb for anyone who has stored rules containing RestrictInfos,
but I do not think that RestrictInfo ever appears in completed plans.)

regression=> select sum(q1) from int8_tbl group by q2 order by sum(q1);
NOTICE:  equal: don't know whether nodes of type 107 are equal

in Resdom and GroupClause so changing of resno's doesn't confuse
the grouping any more.

Jan

complaints in UNION regress test.  Probably still need some more node
types to be handled here, but I'm done for the day...

it is now only mergejoin.

(Have to re-visit readfuncs.c)