Re: machine-dependent hash_any vs the regression tests

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: machine-dependent hash_any vs the regression tests
Date: 2008-04-06 17:41:43
Message-ID: 87myo6c23s.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> SELECT dblink_get_connections();
> dblink_get_connections
> ------------------------
> ! {dtest1,dtest3,dtest2}
> (1 row)
>
> SELECT dblink_is_busy('dtest1');
>
> and right offhand I can't think of a simple way to force those array
> elements into a consistent order.

You could do something like:

postgres=# select (information_schema._pg_expandarray('{1,5,3}'::int[])).x order by x;
x
---
1
3
5
(3 rows)

That would be a whole lot less unappetising if the function wasn't an internal
function that someone might want to change without breaking random regression
tests. It seems likely the day that happens will be the day that we provide an
SQL standard UNNEST anyways though.

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training!

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tino Wildenhain 2008-04-06 18:28:59 Re: modules
Previous Message Kenneth Marshall 2008-04-06 15:45:14 Re: machine-dependent hash_any vs the regression tests