Re: [HACKERS] docs: additional subsection for page-level locks in explicit-locking section

2014-07-03 Thread Fujii Masao
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 4:34 AM, Michael Banck michael.ba...@credativ.de wrote:
 Hi,

 While reading through the Explicit Locking section of the manual today,
 I felt the last paragraph of section 13.3.2. (Row-level Locks) might
 merit its own subsection.  It talks about page-level locks as distinct
 from table- and row-level locks.  Then again, it is just one paragraph,
 so maybe this was deliberate and/or rejected before (though I couldn't
 find prior discussion off-hand).  Proposed patch attached.

This seems to make sense. Barring objection, I will commit this only in HEAD.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] docs: additional subsection for page-level locks in explicit-locking section

2014-07-03 Thread Kevin Grittner
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:

 This seems to make sense. Barring objection, I will commit this
 only in HEAD.

I'm inclined to think this is a slight improvement, just for the
sake of consistency with peer level information.  You probably
already noticed, but the patch as submitted neglects to close the
prior sect2 block before opening the new one.

--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] docs: additional subsection for page-level locks in explicit-locking section

2014-07-03 Thread Fujii Masao
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
 Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:

 This seems to make sense. Barring objection, I will commit this
 only in HEAD.

Committed.

 I'm inclined to think this is a slight improvement, just for the
 sake of consistency with peer level information.  You probably
 already noticed, but the patch as submitted neglects to close the
 prior sect2 block before opening the new one.

Yes, thanks for pointing out that!

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


[HACKERS] docs: additional subsection for page-level locks in explicit-locking section

2014-07-02 Thread Michael Banck
Hi,

While reading through the Explicit Locking section of the manual today,
I felt the last paragraph of section 13.3.2. (Row-level Locks) might
merit its own subsection.  It talks about page-level locks as distinct
from table- and row-level locks.  Then again, it is just one paragraph,
so maybe this was deliberate and/or rejected before (though I couldn't
find prior discussion off-hand).  Proposed patch attached.


Cheers,

Michael

-- 
Michael Banck
Projektleiter / Berater
Tel.: +49 (2161) 4643-171
Fax:  +49 (2161) 4643-100
Email: michael.ba...@credativ.de

credativ GmbH, HRB Mönchengladbach 12080
USt-ID-Nummer: DE204566209
Hohenzollernstr. 133, 41061 Mönchengladbach
Geschäftsführung: Dr. Michael Meskes, Jörg Folz, Sascha Heuer
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/mvcc.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/mvcc.sgml
index 12b7814..84501e0 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/mvcc.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/mvcc.sgml
@@ -1140,6 +1140,9 @@ ERROR:  could not serialize access due to read/write dependencies among transact
  will result in disk writes.
 /para
 
+   sect2 id=locking-pages
+titlePage-level Locks/title
+  
 para
  In addition to table and row locks, page-level share/exclusive locks are
  used to control read/write access to table pages in the shared buffer

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers