From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
---|---|
To: | "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, "Euler Taveira de Oliveira" <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable |
Date: | 2008-01-29 20:35:36 |
Message-ID: | 479F39B7.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 1:09 PM, in message <24107(dot)1201633753(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Or is someone prepared to argue that there are no applications out
> there that will be broken if the same query, against the same unchanging
> table, yields different results from one trial to the next?
If geqo kicks in, we're already there, aren't we?
Isn't an application which counts on the order of result rows
without specifying ORDER BY fundamentally broken?
-Kevin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Caleb Welton | 2008-01-29 20:58:39 | Re: Transition functions for SUM(::int2), SUM(::int4, SUM(::int8]) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-29 20:12:41 | Re: Large pgstat.stat file causes I/O storm |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-29 21:00:49 | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-29 19:09:13 | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable |