Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha

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)...

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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

Browse pgsql-ports by date

  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