Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of vie ago 03 09:59:36 -0400 2012: > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:26:56AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > The concurrent index documentation under discussion above was never > > updated, so I took a stab at it, attached. > > > > Greg, I looked at adding a mention of the virtual transaction wait to > > the "explicit-locking" section as you suggested, and found those were > > all user-visible locking, while this is internal locking. I did find a > > clear description of transaction id locking in the pg_locks system view > > docs, so I just referenced that. > > I found a way to clarify the wording further; patch attached.
Looks sane to me. Are we backpatching this to 9.1? I no longer remember if the original wording is there or just in 9.2. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
