Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54038632AFD
	for <pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:01:43 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia,
	port 10024) with ESMTP id 71569-03 for
	<pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:01:34 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13802632A48
	for <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:01:35 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o7KE1Wpr016576;
	Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:01:33 -0400 (EDT)
To: Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>
cc: pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Unordered SELECT - random vs undefined 
In-reply-to: <AANLkTi=RUkT6uGtYt9mkUQUdsSmuhF=GU3PCej5sKEO5@mail.gmail.com> 
References: <AANLkTi=MKE+0n9_nf8g-Lw8=0YkURu3oSe-k+LcnJdR+@mail.gmail.com>
	<16245.1282311936@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<AANLkTi=RUkT6uGtYt9mkUQUdsSmuhF=GU3PCej5sKEO5@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>
	message dated "Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:49:28 +0100"
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:01:32 -0400
Message-ID: <16575.1282312892@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9,
	T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201008/66
X-Sequence-Number: 5890

Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> writes:
> On 20 August 2010 14:45, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Perhaps "unspecified" is le mot juste.

> Yes, that sounds more appopriate.

OK, done.  I found one other place in the docs where "random" seemed
to be used inappropriately, too.

			regards, tom lane