On 16.06.2011 20:33, Dan Ports wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 04:39:09PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
There's no mention on what T1 is. I believe it's supposed to be Tin, in
the terminology used in the graph.
Yes, I changed the naming after I originally wrote it, and missed a
couple spots. T1 should be Tin.
I don't see how there can be a ww-dependency between T0 and Tin. There
can't be a rw-conflict because Tin is read-only, so surely there can't
be a ww-conflict either?
Yes, it can only be a wr-conflict. Good catch.
Ok, I'll commit with those changes.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
