Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Bah. I was sure I was missing something, still I would have thought
> that the index scan is cheaper than the bitmap index scan with ORDER
> BY. As far as I can see, this patch is not the most elegant thing, but
> it has value. So marked as "ready for committer".
Pushed, thanks for the review.
regards, tom lane