Horton

Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable

Kevin Grittner <kevin.grittner@wicourts.gov>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
To: "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <Andreas.Zeugswetter@s-itsolutions.at>, "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki@enterprisedb.com>, "Gregory Stark" <stark@enterprisedb.com>, "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com>, <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, "Neil Conway" <neilc@samurai.com>, "Euler Taveira de Oliveira" <euler@timbira.com>
Date: 2008-01-29T20:35:36Z
Lists: 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