From: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org>, <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: idea for concurrent seqscans |
Date: | 2005-02-26 12:45:37 |
Message-ID: | 2089.24.211.165.134.1109421937.squirrel@www.dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane said:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
>>> but I also hate to burden the developers with rewriting a lot of
>>> regression tests when their time could be better spent elsewhere.
>
>> Certainly, but I suspect it's just a matter of adding ORDER BY to
>> everything, which just about anyone (even myself!) should be able to
>> do.
>
> Performance is not the issue; test coverage, however, is an issue. See
> the comment at the end of
> http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/regress-evaluation.html#AEN22383>
Is it not possible to wrap the original query in an outer query that applies
the ordering, leaving the original query run without ordering? Would that
cause a lessening of test coverage?
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-02-26 13:13:08 | Re: Development schedule |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2005-02-26 12:39:25 | Re: idea for concurrent seqscans |