On 2013-01-25 12:52:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > I think if we backpatch this we should only prefer wraparound tables and > > leave the rest unchanged. > > That's not a realistic option, at least not with anything that uses this > approach to sorting the tables. You'd have to assume that qsort() is > stable which it probably isn't.
Well, comparing them equally will result in an about as arbitrary order as right now, so I don't really see a problem with that. I am fine with sorting them truly randomly as well (by assining a temporary value when putting it into the list so the comparison is repeatable and conforms to the triangle inequality etc). Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
