X-Original-To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A238475B8A; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:27:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 872BB475AFA; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:27:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1CNR15u008580; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:27:01 -0500 (EST) To: Florian Wunderlich Cc: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Bug #866 related problem (ATTN Tom Lane) In-reply-to: <3E48B6C8.A36E5A92@hq.factor3.com> References: <3E48B6C8.A36E5A92@hq.factor3.com> Comments: In-reply-to Florian Wunderlich message dated "Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:39:36 +0100" Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:27:01 -0500 Message-ID: <8579.1045092421@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200302/45 X-Sequence-Number: 5461 Florian Wunderlich writes: > So can I be sure that every non-aggregate SELECT on tables joined with > unique indexes works, independent of the WHERE or ORDER BY? I would think that backwards scan on a join mostly doesn't work, but haven't tried it in any detail. A plan with a SORT node at the top *will* work, no matter what's under the SORT, so ORDER BY might mask problems in some cases. > Is anybody working on implementing this functionality? Not me... although I have thought about at least adding enough code to report an error in the cases that will give wrong answers. regards, tom lane