On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote:
> BTW, I've sometimes wished for a mode where queries would silently have > result ordering intentionally futzed, to eliminate any possibility of > dependence on tuple ordering (as well as having sequences start at some > random value). I guess with the hooks that are in place today it wouldn't > be hard to stick a ORDER BY random() in if there wasn't already a Sort node > at the top level... +1 In Oracle, we sorta had that feature by adding a parallel hint to a query even if it didn't need it. It came in handy.
