Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Just to be sure: a backwards-started scan is currently unreachable code, >>> correct? >> >> [ yawn... ] I think so, but I wouldn't swear to it right at the moment. >> In any case it doesn't seem like a path that we need to optimize.
> Agreed, let's just disable the reporting when moving backwards. Now that I'm awake, it is reachable code, per this comment: * Note: when we fall off the end of the scan in either direction, we * reset rs_inited. This means that a further request with the same * scan direction will restart the scan, which is a bit odd, but a * request with the opposite scan direction will start a fresh scan * in the proper direction. The latter is required behavior for cursors, * while the former case is generally undefined behavior in Postgres * so we don't care too much. That is, if you run a cursor to the end and then back up, you'll go through the init-in-the-backwards-direction code. But we're agreed that we don't want to report when moving backwards, so this is just an interesting note... regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings