On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 12:06:02PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > It's not clear to me that it's worth running this to ground in any > more detail than that. The behavior is not wrong; it's the test's > fault to assume that these rows will be returned in a deterministic > order. So I think the right fix is to adjust the test query, > along the lines of > > -UPDATE ft2 SET c3 = 'bar' WHERE postgres_fdw_abs(c1) > 2000 RETURNING *; > +WITH cte AS ( > + UPDATE ft2 SET c3 = 'bar' WHERE postgres_fdw_abs(c1) > 2000 RETURNING * > +) SELECT * FROM cte ORDER BY c1;
+1. I faintly recall looking into this a while ago and, for some reason, I was worried that this would become a game of Whac-A-Mole, so apparently I didn't follow through. But fixing this query is still an improvement over the status quo. -- nathan
