On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 13:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > We could probably fix this by complicating the logic in ExecUnique, > but I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to just stop treating > Unique nodes as backwards-scannable.
No problem there. > The only reason for that > node type to exist (as opposed to using Group nodes) is that it's > simple and low-overhead. So complicating it to support a corner case > that no one has noticed in many years might be counterproductive. > Thoughts? I've never seen anyone scan backwards like this at all in practical use. I knew it was possible, but never seen it done. It seems entirely probable nobody else has either. It's a PostgreSQL extension, so people arriving from outside don't even know it exists, plus its always had bugs so those in-the-know don't use it either: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/1998-06/msg00049.php My perceptions may not match others... -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
