Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Sorry for not paying attention sooner. After studying it for awhile,
>> I think the change is probably all right but your proposed comment is
>> entirely inadequate.
> If you don't like that version, can you suggest something you would like
> better?
Perhaps like this:
* We assume the entry requires exclusive lock on each TABLE or TABLE DATA
* item listed among its dependencies. Originally all of these would have
* been TABLE items, but repoint_table_dependencies would have repointed
* them to the TABLE DATA items if those are present (which they might not
* be, eg in a schema-only dump). Note that all of the entries we are
* processing here are POST_DATA; otherwise there might be a significant
* difference between a dependency on a table and a dependency on its
* data, so that closer analysis would be needed here.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
