| From: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: some aspects of our qsort might not be ideal |
| Date: | 2022-06-23 15:08:07 |
| Message-ID: | CAEze2Wj8Za=p+sOW=w_rEYnSykmeFoLo9+rxyPyahBE0qRz-eA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 17:04, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 7:51 AM Matthias van de Meent
> <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I think that mostly has to do with reliability / stability of ORDER BY
> > in combination with LIMIT and OFFSET, even though right now we cannot
> > fully guarantee such stability due to unstable results from underlying
> > plan nodes.
>
> The current qsort isn't stable.
Then I misunderstood Robert's comment, thanks for correcting me.
- Matthias
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2022-06-23 15:19:45 | Re: allow specifying action when standby encounters incompatible parameter settings |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-06-23 15:04:17 | Re: some aspects of our qsort might not be ideal |