| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: dump/restore doesn't preserve row ordering? |
| Date: | 2016-08-24 13:15:36 |
| Message-ID: | CACjxUsOXK+iNW5Rj44u64WoRoWWPArADvLRi4CxytTZaS+ed+g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:43 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> It's interesting that nobody has complained about this behavior.
We have been known to emphasize that unless you have an ORDER BY
clause at the outermost level of a query, there is no guarantee
about the order of rows returned. In general, even with autovacuum
off and no DML running, the same query can return rows in a
different order because of synchronized scans -- so I would tend to
view the lack of complaints as a sign of the maturity and awareness
of the user base.
Of course, it can still be an inconvenience for testing, but that's
a different issue.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-08-24 13:42:56 | Re: Showing parallel status in \df+ |
| Previous Message | Andrew Gierth | 2016-08-24 12:55:00 | Re: Strange result with LATERAL query |