At Thu, 6 Feb 2020 11:57:07 +0100, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote in > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 10:24:50AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > At Wed, 5 Feb 2020 17:37:30 +0100, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> > > wrote in > > We could add an additional parameter "in_cursor" to > > ExecSupportBackwardScan and let skip scan return false if in_cursor is > > true, but I'm not sure it's acceptable. > > I also was thinking about whether it's possible to use > ExecSupportBackwardScan here, but skip scan is just a mode of an > index/indexonly scan. Which means that ExecSupportBackwardScan also need > to know somehow if this mode is being used, and then, since this > function is called after it's already decided to use skip scan in the > resulting plan, somehow correct the plan (exclude skipping and try to > find next best path?) - do I understand your suggestion correct?
I didn't thought so hardly, but a bit of confirmation told me that IndexSupportsBackwardScan returns fixed flag for AM. It seems that things are not that simple. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
