Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 11:04:58AM +0200, DANTE Alexandra wrote:
>> I've just seen that I've done a mistake in my example. My question was :
>> is it correct to think that the ctid of the old version of the tuple is
>> a link to newer version ?
> Well, in your case where there are no other transactions running, yes.
> In the general case there may have been other updates so all you know
> is that the new tuple is a descendant of the old one. The chain of
> t_ctid links can be arbitrarily long.
It's probably worth pointing out here that the "ctid" column exposed
at the SQL level is not the same as t_ctid --- it's what the C code calls
t_self.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
