| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Zhang Mingli <zmlpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [Question] Window Function Results without ORDER BY Clause |
| Date: | 2025-07-11 15:57:29 |
| Message-ID: | 1753098.1752249449@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Friday, July 11, 2025, Zhang Mingli <zmlpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> So, are both result sets technically correct given the absence of an ORDER
>> BY clause?
> The system is behaving within the requirements of the specification. The
> query itself is bugged code that the query author should fix.
Well, it's our own regression-test query. I think the actual question
being asked here is "do our regression tests need to pass under random
non-default GUC settings?". I'd say no; it'd be next door to
impossible to guarantee that. If this query gave unstable results
in practice, we'd have noticed by now (it's been there since 2010).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2025-07-11 15:59:39 | Re: Adding wait events statistics |
| Previous Message | Bernd Helmle | 2025-07-11 15:53:58 | Re: Changing the state of data checksums in a running cluster |