| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-documentation <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: MVCC snapshot timing |
| Date: | 2013-11-12 02:27:15 |
| Message-ID: | 21328.1384223235@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 08:59:35PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 'Statement' might work.
> OK, updated patch attached. Is "statement" too vague here? SQL
> statement? query?
"SQL statement" might be a good idea in the first sentence, but
I don't think you need to repeat it in the second.
What's bothering me about this wording is that you're talking about
statements and then suddenly reference transactions (as being "those
other things messing with your data"). This seems weirdly asymmetric,
since after all you could equally well be the one messing with their
data.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-11-12 02:46:09 | Re: MVCC snapshot timing |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-11-12 02:19:54 | Re: MVCC snapshot timing |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabrízio de Royes Mello | 2013-11-12 02:43:43 | Re: pg_dump and pg_dumpall in real life |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-11-12 02:19:54 | Re: MVCC snapshot timing |