Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Docs: Make notes on sequences and rollback more obvious

2012-08-18 Thread Craig Ringer
On 08/07/2012 09:45 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: I also think it's a problem that one can get through the entire Concurrency Control chapter (mvcc.sgml) without a clue that sequences aren't transactional. I think maybe a mention in the Introduction section of that chapter with a ref would be

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Docs: Make notes on sequences and rollback more obvious

2012-08-18 Thread Craig Ringer
On 08/07/2012 09:45 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: I also think it's a problem that one can get through the entire Concurrency Control chapter (mvcc.sgml) without a clue that sequences aren't transactional. I'm also wondering about adding something like the following summary of features with odd

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Docs: Make notes on sequences and rollback more obvious

2012-08-18 Thread Nicolas Barbier
2012/8/7 Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov: I also think it's a problem that one can get through the entire Concurrency Control chapter (mvcc.sgml) without a clue that sequences aren't transactional. It is possible to say that they *are* transactional when considering the following

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Docs: Make notes on sequences and rollback more obvious

2012-08-18 Thread Craig Ringer
On 08/18/2012 05:19 PM, Nicolas Barbier wrote: 2012/8/7 Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov: I also think it's a problem that one can get through the entire Concurrency Control chapter (mvcc.sgml) without a clue that sequences aren't transactional. It is possible to say that they

Re: [HACKERS] SP-GiST for ranges based on 2d-mapping and quad-tree

2012-08-18 Thread Alexander Korotkov
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: I committed the patch now, but left out the support for adjacent for now. Not because there was necessarily anything wrong with that, but because I have limited time for reviewing, and the rest of

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Docs: Make notes on sequences and rollback more obvious

2012-08-18 Thread Jeff Janes
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Craig Ringer ring...@ringerc.id.au wrote: On 08/07/2012 09:45 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: I also think it's a problem that one can get through the entire Concurrency Control chapter (mvcc.sgml) without a clue that sequences aren't transactional. I think maybe a

Re: [HACKERS] elog/ereport noreturn decoration

2012-08-18 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 23:35 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: My proposal with ereport would be to do this: diff --git i/src/include/utils/elog.h w/src/include/utils/elog.h --- i/src/include/utils/elog.h +++ w/src/include/utils/elog.h @@ -104,7 +104,8 @@ */ #define ereport_domain(elevel,

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: In docs, change a few cases of not important to unimportant.

2012-08-18 Thread Gavin Flower
On 17/08/12 03:45, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:38:09AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote: On 16.08.2012 17:49, Bruce Momjian wrote: Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 16.08.2012 17:36, Bruce Momjian wrote: In docs, change