| From: | Peter Galbavy <Peter(dot)Galbavy(at)knowledge(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Uncle George <gatgul(at)voicenet(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, pgsql-ports(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha |
| Date: | 1999-07-23 13:46:44 |
| Message-ID: | 19990723144644.A2819@office.knowledge.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-ports |
On Fri, Jul 23, 1999 at 07:26:03AM -0400, Uncle George wrote:
> Thanks,
> But I think that a computer has no right to any "damn order" it
> wants to, particular if its the same src & test facilities.
> gat
Thomas' reply is quite correct. Unless you specify an order, the
underlying system (maybe not even postgresql, but the OS and libraries
it uses) may sort and return comparisons in any order, but always a
consistent order.
The fact that an i386 and an alpha processor based systems return
results differently should be of no suprise. You must explicitly
specify "ORDER BY xxx" in a query, and even then you need to know your
collation sequences etc.
Regards,
--
Peter Galbavy
Knowledge Matters Ltd
http://www.knowledge.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 1999-07-23 13:47:11 | Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-07-23 13:46:14 | Re: [HACKERS] Seg fault in initdb |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 1999-07-23 13:47:11 | Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha |
| Previous Message | Fernando Schapachnik | 1999-07-23 13:45:09 | 6.5 not running on Solaris 2.5.1 SPARC |