Re: Unexpected sort order (suspected bug)

Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 12:44 -0800, Ron Mayer wrote:
>> Shouldn't the results of this query shown here been sorted by "b" rather than by "a"?
>>
>> I would have thought since "order by b" is in the outer sql statement it would have
>> been the one the final result gets ordered by.
>>
>> li=# select * from (select (random()*10)::int as a, (random()*10)::int as b from generate_series(1,10) order by a) as x order by b;
>> a | b
>> ---+----
>> 0 | 8
>> 1 | 10
>> 3 | 4
>> 4 | 8
>> 5 | 1
>> 5 | 9
>> 6 | 4
>> 6 | 5
>> 8 | 4
>> 9 | 0
>> (10 rows)
>>...
>
> It looks like a planner bug.
>
> Below are two plans; the first fails and the second succeeds. That leads
> me to believe it's a planner bug, but what seems strangest to me is that
> it does order by a, and not by some new evaluation of (random()*10).
>

Yeah, looks that way to me too.

So how would I report it. Ccing the bugs list? Guess it can't hurt.