Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2025 16:32:21 -0500
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Bernice Southey <bernice.southey@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: More guidance on ctid
Message-ID: <aUsKZRmXgvI-k5Nb@momjian.us>
References: 
 <CAEDh4nyn5swFYuSfcnGAbpQrKOc47Hh_ZyKVSPYJcu2P=51Luw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aSTL3rgmztLq1UIH@momjian.us>
 <CAEDh4nzDMoRDZMDGGxKHzJ5hZscmvT2FWioTzQ6A0aJVtCO8NQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <aUnBfsbUbObEcY42@momjian.us>
 <CAEDh4nz-6HeVGHEU1Pv7Z4y=j44wtkeMyyJ5tfqAT5FHT4sq=w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEDh4nz-6HeVGHEU1Pv7Z4y=j44wtkeMyyJ5tfqAT5FHT4sq=w@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aUsKZRmXgvI-k5Nb%40momjian.us>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 11:49:37AM +0000, Bernice Southey wrote:
> 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.

Great.

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

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:

	https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CADkLM%3DcaNEQsUwPWnfi2jR4ix99E0EJM_3jtcE-YjnEQC7Rssw%40mail.gmail.com

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.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.