Eric Ridge <eeb...@gmail.com> writes:
> What I'm seeing is that the ctid returned from this function isn't always
> correct:
> # select ctid, foo(table) from table limit 10;
> ctid | foo
> -------+-----------
> (0,1) | (19195,1) -- not correct!
> (0,2) | (0,2)
> (0,3) | (0,3)
I suspect the tuple at (0,1) has been the subject of a failed update.
Your problem here is that you're mistaking the t_ctid field of a tuple
header for the tuple's address. It is not that; it's really just garbage
normally, and is only useful to link forward to the next version of the
row from an outdated tuple. I think we do initialize it to the tuple's
own address during an INSERT, but either a completed or failed UPDATE
would change it.
I do not think there is any way to get the true address of a heap tuple
out of a composite Datum manufactured from the tuple. Most of the other
system columns can't be gotten from a composite Datum either, because of
the field overlay in HeapTupleHeaderData's union t_choice.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
