Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2023-01-25 10:02:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We must have the NoMovementScanDirection option because count = 0
>> does not mean "do nothing", and I noted at least two call sites
>> that require it.
> I wonder if we'd be better off removing NoMovementScanDirection, and using
> count == (uint64)-1 for what NoMovementScanDirection is currently used for as
> an ExecutorRun parameter. Seems less confusing to me - right now we have two
> parameters with non-obbvious meanings and interactions.
I'm down on that because it seems just about certain to break extensions
that call the executor, and it isn't adding enough clarity (IMHO) to
justify that.
regards, tom lane