Re: doc: Bring mention of unique index forced transaction wait behavior outside of the internal section

On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 09:07:42AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 6:49 AM Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> > It's basically a glorified cross-reference.  I didn't dislike directing
> the reader to the internals section enough to try and establish a better
> location for the main content.
>
> One problem I see is that:
>
> + [..], but as there is no pre-existing data, visibility checks are
> unnecessary.
>
> ... allows a wide variety of interpretations, most of which will be
> wrong. And all in all I find an added paragraph somewhat cryptic.
>
> Yeah, I'd probably have to say "but since no existing record is being modified,
> visibility checks are unnecessary".
>
> Is there a specific mis-interpretation that first came to mind for you that I
> can consider specifically?
>
>
> If the goal is to add a cross-reference I suggest keeping it short,
> something like "For additional details on various corner cases please
> see ...".
>
> That does work, and I may end up there, but it feels unsatisfying to be so
> vague/general.

I was not happy with putting this in the Transaction Isolation section.
I rewrote it and put it in the INSERT secion, right before ON CONFLICT;
patch attached.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

Indecision is a decision. Inaction is an action. Mark Batterson