From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 01:51:40 |
Message-ID: | 200502260151.j1Q1peq21392@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> 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...)
The only trick I can think of is to use SELECT ... INTO TEMPORARY tab
... oRDER BY and then use COPY to dump the table. It will then dump in
the order of the ORDER BY.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-02-26 01:52:40 | Re: idea for concurrent seqscans |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2005-02-26 00:30:17 | Re: idea for concurrent seqscans |