MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAEDh4nyn5swFYuSfcnGAbpQrKOc47Hh_ZyKVSPYJcu2P=51Luw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aSTL3rgmztLq1UIH@momjian.us>
 <CAEDh4nzDMoRDZMDGGxKHzJ5hZscmvT2FWioTzQ6A0aJVtCO8NQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <aUnBfsbUbObEcY42@momjian.us>
In-Reply-To: <aUnBfsbUbObEcY42@momjian.us>
From: Bernice Southey <bernice.southey@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2025 11:49:37 +0000
Message-ID: 
 <CAEDh4nz-6HeVGHEU1Pv7Z4y=j44wtkeMyyJ5tfqAT5FHT4sq=w@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/CAEDh4nz-6HeVGHEU1Pv7Z4y%3Dj44wtkeMyyJ5tfqAT5FHT4sq%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> What I did do was to explain why ctid was safe in this
> use-case.  I also strengthened the documentation that ctid is not valid
> for row references.
I like this, explaining the risk is much better. I couldn't think of a
simple way to do it.

There was a strong preference for not duplicating the explanatory text
when the examples were added. Perhaps delete doesn't need the new
line?

Thanks, Bernice

PS - Thanks for your postgres internals videos. I found them a few
months ago and they lit up my brain.