Re: Synchronized scans

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>> As I understand it, the problem is that while currently LIMIT without
>> ORDER BY always starts at the beginning of the table, it will not with
>> this patch.  I consider that acceptable.
>
> It's definitely going to require stronger warnings than we have now
> about using LIMIT without ORDER BY.

Along the lines of

NOTICE: LIMIT without ORDER BY returns an arbitrary set of matching rows

perhaps? I wonder how easy it is to detect that in the planner.

Or just a remark in the manual?

--
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com