| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Edmund Horner <ejrh00(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Tid scan improvements |
| Date: | 2019-03-26 16:35:33 |
| Message-ID: | 20190326163533.ugtdxd67xevfc2p7@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-03-26 19:11:13 +1300, Edmund Horner wrote:
> The changes in heapam.c were required for backward scan support, as
> used by ORDER BY ctid DESC and MAX(ctid); and also for FETCH LAST and
> FETCH PRIOR. I have removed the backward scans functionality from the
> current set of patches, but support for backward cursor fetches
> remains.
>
> I guess to brutally simplify the patch further, we could give up
> backward cursor fetches entirely? This means such cursors that end up
> using a TidRangeScan will require SCROLL to go backwards (which is a
> small pain for user experience), but TBH I don't think backwards-going
> cursors on CTID will be hugely common.
FWIW, I think it'd be entirely reasonable to remove support for backward
scans without SCROLL. In fact, I think it'd be wasted effort to maintain
code for it, without a pretty clear reason why we need it (unless it
were trivial to support, which it isn't).
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2019-03-26 16:36:05 | Re: pgsql: Get rid of backtracking in jsonpath_scan.l |
| Previous Message | Nikolay Shaplov | 2019-03-26 16:19:50 | [PATCH][HOTFIX] vacuum_cost_delay type change from int to real have not been done everywhere |