On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On 2014-05-09 22:14:25 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> [ patch ] > > I've committed a revised version of Andres' patch. Thanks!
> I thought even that was kind of overkill; but a bigger problem is the > output was sensitive to hash values which are not portable across > different architectures. With a bit of experimentation I found that > a SELECT DISTINCT ... ORDER BY query would exercise both hashing and > sorting, so that's what got committed. (I'm not entirely sure though > whether the plan will be stable across architectures; we might have > to tweak the test case based on buildfarm feedback.) Yeah this was a bit too much, and came up with some more light-weight regression tests instead in the patch here: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqSgZVrHRgsgUg63SCFY+AwH-=3judy7moq-_fo7wi4...@mail.gmail.com -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
