On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 01:23:53PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:55:30PM -0400, Álvaro Herrera wrote: > > 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. > > I wasn't planning to, but will do as you suggest for 9.1.
Done. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
