Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-08-01 13:48:34 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > Oid is probably not good enough - with parallel tests and such it's not
> > > necessarily predicable. Even less so when the tests are run against an
> > > existing
On 2017-08-01 13:48:34 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Oid is probably not good enough - with parallel tests and such it's not
> > necessarily predicable. Even less so when the tests are run against an
> > existing cluster. Sorting by name woul
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Oid is probably not good enough - with parallel tests and such it's not
>> necessarily predicable. Even less so when the tests are run against an
>> existing cluster. Sorting by name would probably be better...
> It's
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Oid is probably not good enough - with parallel tests and such it's not
> necessarily predicable. Even less so when the tests are run against an
> existing cluster. Sorting by name would probably be better...
It's arguably more user-friendly
Hi,
On 2017-08-01 13:34:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, in the long run maybe we should instead make the CASCADE message
> ordering more predictable, perhaps by sorting the objects by OID.
> But that's not a job for beta time.
Oid is probably not good enough - with parallel tests and such it's n
