| From: | Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matthias Apitz <guru(at)unixarea(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: lifetime of the old CTID |
| Date: | 2022-07-06 19:56:55 |
| Message-ID: | A294E4C1-1177-401D-B170-BE9A7D0C959A@thebuild.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> On Jul 6, 2022, at 12:51, Matthias Apitz <guru(at)unixarea(dot)de> wrote:
> it is uniqu to identify a row in a table once
> known.
I think the point that we are trying to make here is that a ctid *isn't* that. There is no guarantee, at all, at any level, that the ctid of a row will remain stable, not even between two SELECT statements. (Although it doesn't right now, I could easily image some kind of repack logic in PostgreSQL that runs on read operations, not just write.) It shouldn't be considered an API. I understand that it might be painful to change to a generated primary key, but I think that will be less painful in the long run than having to stay ahead of PostgreSQL's internals.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2022-07-06 20:08:44 | Re: Seems to be impossible to set a NULL search_path |
| Previous Message | Matthias Apitz | 2022-07-06 19:51:48 | Re: lifetime of the old CTID |