> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:17 PM Floris Van Nee <
florisvannee@optiver.com> wrote:
> The following sql statement seems to have incorrect results - some logic in
> the backwards scan is currently not entirely right.
Thanks for testing! You're right, looks like in the current implementation in
case of backwards scan there is one unnecessary extra step forward. It seems
this mistake was made, since I was concentrating only on the backward scans
with a cursor, and used not exactly correct approach to wrap up after a scan
was finished. Give me a moment, I'll tighten it up.
