| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Word-smithing doc changes |
| Date: | 2012-08-03 16:55:30 |
| Message-ID: | 1344012846-sup-3467@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of vie ago 03 09:59:36 -0400 2012:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:26:56AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > The concurrent index documentation under discussion above was never
> > updated, so I took a stab at it, attached.
> >
> > Greg, I looked at adding a mention of the virtual transaction wait to
> > the "explicit-locking" section as you suggested, and found those were
> > all user-visible locking, while this is internal locking. I did find a
> > clear description of transaction id locking in the pg_locks system view
> > docs, so I just referenced that.
>
> I found a way to clarify the wording further; patch attached.
Looks sane to me.
Are we backpatching this to 9.1? I no longer remember if the original
wording is there or just in 9.2.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-08-03 17:14:31 | Re: Re: SPGiST versus hot standby - question about conflict resolution rules |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-08-03 16:53:22 | Re: -Wformat-zero-length |