| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| 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 17:23:53 |
| Message-ID: | 20120803172353.GC3463@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:55:30PM -0400, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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.
I wasn't planning to, but will do as you suggest for 9.1.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-08-03 17:32:21 | Re: -Wformat-zero-length |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-08-03 17:23:37 | Re: WIP pgindent replacement |