Re: Hmm, nodeUnique doesn't really support backwards scan too well - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: Hmm, nodeUnique doesn't really support backwards scan too well
Date
Msg-id 1217973812.4549.112.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant
Whole thread Raw
In response to Hmm, nodeUnique doesn't really support backwards scan too well  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Hmm, nodeUnique doesn't really support backwards scan too well
List pgsql-bugs
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

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Hmm, nodeUnique doesn't really support backwards scan too well
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Hmm, nodeUnique doesn't really support backwards scan too well