Robert Haas <> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Tom Lane <> 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 (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to