| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronized scans |
| Date: | 2007-06-04 15:25:57 |
| Message-ID: | 46642F05.1020506@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> As I understand it, the problem is that while currently LIMIT without
>> ORDER BY always starts at the beginning of the table, it will not with
>> this patch. I consider that acceptable.
>
> It's definitely going to require stronger warnings than we have now
> about using LIMIT without ORDER BY.
Along the lines of
NOTICE: LIMIT without ORDER BY returns an arbitrary set of matching rows
perhaps? I wonder how easy it is to detect that in the planner.
Or just a remark in the manual?
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2007-06-04 19:17:49 | Re: Synchronized scans |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-04 15:16:41 | Re: Synchronized scans |