| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: idea for concurrent seqscans |
| Date: | 2005-02-26 00:03:53 |
| Message-ID: | 20050226000353.GQ84483@decibel.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 01:30:57PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org> writes:
> > I didn't consider that. Is there a reason the regression tests assume
> > the results will be returned in a certain order (or a consistent order)?
>
> We use diff as the checking tool.
Doesn't the SQL spec specifically state that the only time you'll get
results in a deterministic order is if you use ORDER BY? Assuming
otherwise seems a bad idea (though at least in the case of testing it
makes the test more strenuous rather than less...)
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2005-02-26 00:04:32 | Re: idea for concurrent seqscans |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2005-02-25 23:03:39 | Re: Modifying COPY TO |