Excerpts from Greg Stark's message of sáb jun 25 21:01:36 -0400 2011: > I think this commit was ill-advised: > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=a03feb9354bda5084f19cc952bc52ba7be89f372
> Seems way to implementation-specific and detailed for a user to make > heads or tails of. Except in the sections talking about locking > internals we don't talk about "shared locks on virtual transactions > identifiers" we just talk about waiting for a transaction to complete. Hmm, right. > And looping over the transactions one by one is purely an > implementation detail and uninteresting to users. Also it uses > ill-defined terms like "active transactions", "potentially interfering > older transactions", and "original index" -- from the user's point of > view there's only one index and it just isn't completely built yet. Wow, that's a lot of mistakes for a single paragraph, sorry about that. > Are we not yet in string-freeze though? I'll go ahead and edit it if > people don't mind. I'm curious to see the original complaint though. I don't -- please go ahead. Original complaint in Message-id 4ddb64cb.7070...@2ndquadrant.com -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
