On 7 May 2012 17:34, Jeremy Walker <jez.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 7 May 2012 08:31, rahaji...@bankofbaku.com <rahaji...@bankofbaku.com>wrote: > >> Hi, I'm using Rails 3.2.1 and following through Mike Hartl's >> tutorial. >> >> irb(main):024:0> User.first >> User Load (0.6ms) SELECT "users".* FROM "users" LIMIT 1 >> => ... >> irb(main):025:0> User.last >> User Load (1.0ms) SELECT "users".* FROM "users" ORDER BY >> "users"."id" DESC LIMIT 1 >> => ... >> >> Here's what PostgreSQL docs say concerning ORDER-less SELECTs: >> "If the ORDER BY clause is specified, the returned rows are sorted in >> the specified order. If ORDER BY is not given, the rows are returned >> in whatever order the system finds fastest to produce. (See ORDER BY >> Clause below.)" >> >> >> So, shouldn't ORDER BY .. ASC be specified explicitly, instead of >> relying on an implementation detail that might later change? >> > > This strikes me as a good suggestion. I'll put a pull request together for > it unless anyone has any objections. >
After a quick browse through the code, this has already been added to Rails master and will appear in a future release. > > Jeremy Walker > http://www.ihid.co.uk > > >> >> Thanks. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. >> To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. >> >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
