> I believe the ODBC driver uses CTID for this sort of problem. CTID is > guaranteed to exist and to be fast to access (since it's a physical > locator). Against this you have the problem that concurrent updates > of the record will move it, leaving your CTID invalid. However, that
IIRC the ctid access follows the chain up to the currently valid tuple ? I thought the only enemy of ctid access was "vacuum" ? Andreas ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: 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