Re: PATCH: Postgresql Patch

Hi,

would it not be easier to use our UUID instead? I have patch in my tree, 
  will try to extract it...

Thanks,
Alex

Guillaume Cottenceau schrieb:
> "Hillel" <hillel 'at' ecommunicate.biz> writes:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> Guillaume I agree it's not so clear from the documentation below, but as far
>> as I know the CTID is the physical position of the row inside the heap.
>> Every UPDATE and some VACUUM operations can affect it.
>>
>> Even if the CTID may be stable over a DELETE as of today, some future
>> storage engine development (like HOT enhancements) may put an end to that.
>> In general, the CTID is not guaranteed to remain the same unless you hold a
>> FOR UPDATE lock on the row.
> 
> True, though the net result is really similar to the previous one
> with OIDs. I guess it boils down to knowing why OID why chosen
> over a proper SERIAL column in the first place, and I don't know
> the reason for that (I could find no relevant information in the
> mailing-list archive; though, I guess the reasoning was to have a
> unique way of creating the kannel DLR table, not one per database
> engine; however, on that question, the approach proved its limit,
> IMHO). If OID was fine, I think CTID is fine, since it has a
> similar behaviour (and I don't think concurrent UPDATEs on the
> dlr table is a supported usage pattern). If we want to be safe,
> and we can afford a different way of creating tables per database
> engine (which is already the case btw, due to the INT(10)
> difference) then of course, using a proper SERIAL column is the
> best decision.
>