Hi,
On 2018-08-02 08:21:58 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I think something on the lines what Tom and you are suggesting can be
> done with the help of EXEC_FLAG_BACKWARD, but I don't see the need to
> do anything for this patch. The change in nodeLimit.c is any way for
> forward scans, so there shouldn't be any need for any other check.
I think this is almost a guarantee to introduce bugs in the future. And
besides that, as Robert points out, it's essentially an exiting bug for
custom scans. Given that EXEC_FLAG_BACKWARD already exists, why not do
the right thing here?
Greetings,
Andres Freund