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

Re: idea for concurrent seqscans

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 (view raw or flat)
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




In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2005-02-26 13:13:08
Subject: Re: Development schedule
Previous:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2005-02-26 12:39:25
Subject: Re: idea for concurrent seqscans

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