Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha

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 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-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/

In response to

pgsql-ports by date

Next:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 1999-07-23 13:47:11
Subject: Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha
Previous:From: Fernando SchapachnikDate: 1999-07-23 13:45:09
Subject: 6.5 not running on Solaris 2.5.1 SPARC

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 1999-07-23 13:47:11
Subject: Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 1999-07-23 13:46:14
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Seg fault in initdb

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group