Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kevin Grittner
Subject Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable
Date
Msg-id 479F39B7.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at  1:09 PM, in message <24107.1201633753@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Or is someone prepared to argue that there are no applications out
> there that will be broken if the same query, against the same unchanging
> table, yields different results from one trial to the next?
If geqo kicks in, we're already there, aren't we?
Isn't an application which counts on the order of result rows
without specifying ORDER BY fundamentally broken?
-Kevin




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Large pgstat.stat file causes I/O storm
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable