On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Simon Riggs <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 14:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> Fixed. See attached. > > I started reading this but by chunk seven I only agree with a couple of > these changes. None of them seem hugely important changes. > > I'd suggest you make a pass of copy editing that doesn't seek to alter > the meanings or add information, so we can agree without discussing each > proposed change in detail. Definitely don't remove information.
I've actually removed very little. The current text repeats some information or splits up related facts across different paragraphs. > It's not impossible to believe that temp tables could be written in the > future, so I disagree with the comments there. The text I wrote does not say that temp tables could not be written in the future. It simply says why they cannot be written now. > We could also allow SELECT ... FOR SHARE during Hot Standby, simply by > making it same as normal SELECT, without any ill effects. True. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
