From: | Ian Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 8.4b1: Query returning results in different order to 8.3 |
Date: | 2009-04-19 04:22:56 |
Message-ID: | 1d581afe0904182122q6c194e41y7348d6263f76a51d@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2009/4/19 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> > Ian Barwick wrote:
> >> Note I'm not sure whether this is a bug, or whether the assumption
> >> made for the original query (that the row order returned by the
> >> subquery would be carried over to the main part of the query) is
> >> incorrect but just happened to work as expected pre-8.4.
>
> > The latter. Without an ORDER BY (at the outermost level), the order of
> > the result is not well defined. Before 8.4, UNION was always performed
> > by a Sort + Unique, which explains why the output is always sorted in
> > previous releases. 8.4 knows how to perform it with a Hash Aggregate,
> > which doesn't yield sorted output.
>
> This is mentioned in the release notes, but I suppose we'd better
> promote it to the "observe the following incompatibilities" list...
>
Thanks for clarifying that. The relevant section in the release notes (which
I managed to miss) is this:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/release-8-4.html#AEN93685
It would certainly be worth an explicit mention as I imagine the previous
behaviour has been consistent enough for queries to have come to rely on
it.
Regards
Ian Barwick
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Brendan Jurd | 2009-04-19 05:12:09 | to_timestamp() changes in 8.4 release notes |
Previous Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2009-04-19 01:28:45 | Re: [PATCH] unalias of ACL_SELECT_FOR_UPDATE |