Re: heapgettup() with NoMovementScanDirection unused in core?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: heapgettup() with NoMovementScanDirection unused in core?
Date: 2023-01-25 21:31:37
Message-ID: 2845397.1674682297@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2023-01-25 21:34:51 Re: pgsql: Rename contrib module basic_archive to basic_wal_module
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2023-01-25 21:30:07 Re: GUCs to control abbreviated sort keys