Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  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