From: | "John Lister" <john(dot)lister-ps(at)kickstone(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Craig Ringer" <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Unit tests and ordering |
Date: | 2009-04-20 08:47:55 |
Message-ID: | D224EADFF0F2461B95D30BEDAB54564A@squarepi.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
>> This seems to be an ordering problem.. The dates are inserted and then
>> the test relies on them being returned in the same order they were
>> inserted. I'm fairly sure that this isn't guaranteed when using SQL,
>
> Correct. Your tests are broken, you REALLY need an ORDER BY clause if you
> depend on the order of the result set. Alternately, adjust your tests to
> not care about the result set order.
I thought so...
>> however it looks like it probably worked before.
>
> The only major change I can personally think of that might've affected
> that is synchronized scans. If you have more than one backend reading the
> table at once using a sequential scan, one of them will usually pick up
> part-way through the table then go back to the beginning once it hits the
> end. I'm not sure if that's likely to be related to what you're seeing.
>
> In any case, you REALLY need an appropriate ORDER BY clause.
It should be simple to correct the tests, by adding a serial id field and
ordering on that...
Thanks
JOHN
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kris Jurka | 2009-04-20 21:51:27 | Re: Query preparation |
Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2009-04-20 01:09:59 | Re: Unit tests and ordering |