Leon wrote:
>
> Ah, you mean MVCC! That's what I replied to Tom Lane:
>
> > This problem can be solved. An offhand solution is to have
> > an additional system field which will point to new tuple left after
> > update. It is filled at the same time as the original tuple is
> > marked invalid. S
Leon wrote:
> Why? There will be no such field as "record number", the only
> place where it can exist is the field which references another
> table. I can quite share your feeling about wrongness of
> physical-oriented things in abstract tables, but don't
> plain old indices deal with physical re
