We currently do not support volatile functions in update/delete statements
because the function evaluation logic does not know how to distinguish
volatile functions (that need to be evaluated per row) from stable functions
(that need to be evaluated per query), and it is also not safe to push the
volatile functions down on replicated tables.
The feature is only intended for getting consistent outputs for the regression tests.
RETURNING does not have any ordering gurantees and with unified executor, the ordering
of query executions on the shards are also becoming unpredictable. Thus, we're enforcing
ordering when a GUC is set.
We implicitly add an `ORDER BY` something equivalent of
`
RETURNING expr1, expr2, .. ,exprN
ORDER BY expr1, expr2, .. ,exprN
`
As described in the code comments as well, this is probably not the most
performant approach we could implement. However, since we're only
targeting regression tests, I don't see any issues with that. If we
decide to expand this to a feature to users, we should revisit the
implementation and improve the performance.