| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: heapgettup() with NoMovementScanDirection unused in core? |
| Date: | 2023-01-31 20:36:20 |
| Message-ID: | 1236088.1675197380@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 at 03:02, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I previously had the asserts here, but I thought perhaps we shouldn't
>> restrict table AMs from using NoMovementScanDirection in whatever way
>> they'd like. We care about protecting heapgettup() and
>> heapgettup_pagemode(). We could put a comment in the table AM API about
>> NoMovementScanDirection not necessarily making sense for a next() type
>> function and informing table AMs that they need not support it.
> hmm, but the recent discovery is that we'll never call ExecutePlan()
> with NoMovementScanDirection, so what exactly is going to call
> table_scan_getnextslot() and table_scan_getnextslot_tidrange() with
> NoMovementScanDirection?
Yeah. This is not an AM-local API.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2023-01-31 20:54:42 | Re: pg_upgrade test failure |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2023-01-31 20:28:22 | Re: heapgettup() with NoMovementScanDirection unused in core? |