Re: Re: [GENERAL] inconsistent behaviour of set-returning functions in sub-query with random()

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom van Tilburg <tom(dot)van(dot)tilburg(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: [GENERAL] inconsistent behaviour of set-returning functions in sub-query with random()
Date: 2016-09-27 22:48:19
Message-ID: 10246.1475016499@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Tom van Tilburg <tom(dot)van(dot)tilburg(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Good to know and I agree that it is not an urgent case.
> I think this practice might be more common in the POSTGIS community where
> there are plenty of set-returning-functions used in this way. My use was
> taking a random sample of a pointcloud distrubution.

Fix pushed to HEAD only. Thanks for the report!

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2016-09-28 04:13:48 Re: how to monitor the progress of really large bulk operations?
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2016-09-27 21:38:10 Re: Update two tables returning id from insert CTE Query

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vitaly Burovoy 2016-09-27 22:57:44 Re: Detect supported SET parameters when pg_restore is run
Previous Message Andres Freund 2016-09-27 22:02:27 Re: LLVM Address Sanitizer (ASAN) and valgrind support