At Thu, 6 Feb 2020 11:57:07 +0100, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@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 <9erthalion6@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