MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAEDh4nyn5swFYuSfcnGAbpQrKOc47Hh_ZyKVSPYJcu2P=51Luw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aSTL3rgmztLq1UIH@momjian.us>
 <CAEDh4nzDMoRDZMDGGxKHzJ5hZscmvT2FWioTzQ6A0aJVtCO8NQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <aUnBfsbUbObEcY42@momjian.us>
 <CAEDh4nz-6HeVGHEU1Pv7Z4y=j44wtkeMyyJ5tfqAT5FHT4sq=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <aUsKZRmXgvI-k5Nb@momjian.us>
In-Reply-To: <aUsKZRmXgvI-k5Nb@momjian.us>
From: Bernice Southey <bernice.southey@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2025 22:27:55 +0000
Message-ID: 
 <CAEDh4nwv22R3WBC-JW96YWfrvgA9UN=rDx11T4+zNrGVpXg5BQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: More guidance on ctid
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEDh4nwv22R3WBC-JW96YWfrvgA9UN%3DrDx11T4%2BzNrGVpXg5BQ%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Uh, where did you see that?  I found the original thread and I don't see
> any mention of a warning, or not wanting a warning:
I meant about all the other stuff (order by and limit etc). At one
point the patch had more duplication across update and delete.

> I feel we need a warning specifically because people will find this
> query, particularly in the very visible UPDATE/DELETE man pages, and not
> realize ctid only has a few save use-cases.
Yes.
I only queried adding it to both because I remembered the original
thread. I agree the visibility of the duplicate warning is better.

[From the thread]
> > It is similar, but the idea here is to aid in discovery. A user might miss the
> > technique for update if it's only documented in delete, and even if they did see
> > it there, they might not realize that it works for both UPDATE and DELETE.
> > We could make reference links from one to the other, but that seems like extra
> > work for the reader.
> I don't agree with bloating the documentation with redundant examples just
> to save a user a click. I like the idea of a link