From: | Uncle George <gatgul(at)voicenet(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
Cc: | pgsql-ports(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha |
Date: | 1999-07-23 11:26:03 |
Message-ID: | 3798514B.5581E6D4@voicenet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-ports |
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
shutup HAL, you will get you're chance to talk to these guys later.
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > The SELECT * FROM shoe_ready WHERE total_avail >= 2;
> > first give a sh3, and then a sh1.
> > BTW this appears to work on the redhat/i386 port . SO where has my
> > alpha gone wrong :-(
>
> It's not wrong. If there is no explicit order-by, your system is
> entitled to return results in any damn order it wants to. The result
> as a set is quite correct (barring other unreported troubles)...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 1999-07-23 11:54:58 | Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Security and Impersonation |
Previous Message | Philip Warner | 1999-07-23 11:10:35 | RFC: Security and Impersonation |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fernando Schapachnik | 1999-07-23 13:45:09 | 6.5 not running on Solaris 2.5.1 SPARC |
Previous Message | Unprivileged user | 1999-07-23 11:06:45 | Port Bug Report: sorting doesn't work |