Hi,
David G. Johnston" <[email protected]> writes:
> On Friday, July 11, 2025, Zhang Mingli <[email protected]> wrote:
>> So, are both result sets technically correct given the absence of an ORDER
>> BY clause?
> The system is behaving within the requirements of the specification. The
> query itself is bugged code that the query author should fix.
Well, it's our own regression-test query. I think the actual question
being asked here is "do our regression tests need to pass under random
non-default GUC settings?". I'd say no; it'd be next door to
impossible to guarantee that. If this query gave unstable results
in practice, we'd have noticed by now (it's been there since 2010).
regards, tom lane
Would like to know ..
1.
Any particular reason why ORDER BY clause was ignored/removed from windows
function
2.
if by applying the ORDER BY clause on windows function, were the regression
test results become deterministic.
Thanks in advance
Dinesh
________________________________
From: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 9:27 PM
To: David G. Johnston <[email protected]>
Cc: Zhang Mingli <[email protected]>; PostgreSQL Hackers
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Question] Window Function Results without ORDER BY Clause
Caution: This email was sent from an external source. Please verify the
sender’s identity before clicking links or opening attachments.
"David G. Johnston" <[email protected]> writes:
> On Friday, July 11, 2025, Zhang Mingli <[email protected]> wrote:
>> So, are both result sets technically correct given the absence of an ORDER
>> BY clause?
> The system is behaving within the requirements of the specification. The
> query itself is bugged code that the query author should fix.
Well, it's our own regression-test query. I think the actual question
being asked here is "do our regression tests need to pass under random
non-default GUC settings?". I'd say no; it'd be next door to
impossible to guarantee that. If this query gave unstable results
in practice, we'd have noticed by now (it's been there since 2010).
regards, tom lane
