Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 18:18, greg@turnstep.com wrote:
>> The GUC route sounds good. I'd like to see ctid handling beefed up at the
>> same time. For example, some operators such as != would be nice and might
>> ease the pain a little for people used to using oids as their "tuple id" :)
> Are we encouraging the use of ctids by applications?
I'd prefer to think not ... but they are a nice "out" in some situations.
I suppose we could at least document them a little better.
regards, tom lane
