Re: Index Skip Scan

Hi Thomas,

On 08/16/2018 02:22 AM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> The idea of starting with DISTINCT was just that it's
> comparatively easy.  We should certainly try to look ahead and bear
> those features in mind when figuring out the interfaces though.  Would
> the indexam skip(scan, direction, prefix_size) operation I proposed be
> sufficient?  Is there a better way?
> 

Yeah, I'm hoping that a Committer can provide some feedback on the 
direction that this patch needs to take.

One thing to consider is the pluggable storage patch, which is a lot 
more important than this patch. I don't want this patch to get in the 
way of that work, so it may have to wait a bit in order to see any new 
potential requirements.

> I'm glad to see this topic come back!
> 

You did the work, and yes hopefully we can get closer to this subject in 
12 :)

Best regards,
  Jesper