David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 at 03:02, Melanie Plageman <melanieplage...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I previously had the asserts here, but I thought perhaps we shouldn't
>> restrict table AMs from using NoMovementScanDirection in whatever way
>> they'd like. We care about protecting heapgettup() and
>> heapgettup_pagemode(). We could put a comment in the table AM API about
>> NoMovementScanDirection not necessarily making sense for a next() type
>> function and informing table AMs that they need not support it.
> hmm, but the recent discovery is that we'll never call ExecutePlan()
> with NoMovementScanDirection, so what exactly is going to call
> table_scan_getnextslot() and table_scan_getnextslot_tidrange() with
> NoMovementScanDirection?
Yeah. This is not an AM-local API.
regards, tom lane
