On 08/21/2012 11:18 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Craig Ringer ring...@ringerc.id.au wrote:
Trying again with the attachments; the archiver only seemed to see the first
patch despite all three being attached. Including patches inline; if you
want 'em prettier, see:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Craig Ringer ring...@ringerc.id.au wrote:
Trying again with the attachments; the archiver only seemed to see the first
patch despite all three being attached. Including patches inline; if you
want 'em prettier, see:
Trying again with the attachments; the archiver only seemed to see the
first patch despite all three being attached. Including patches inline;
if you want 'em prettier, see:
https://github.com/ringerc/postgres/tree/sequence_documentation_fixes
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Make sure you can't read
On 08/19/2012 03:01 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
Or would you instead say that
changes made to a sequence are immediately visible to all other
transactions ?
Yes, that sounds better.
OK, how about the attached series, then?
The 2nd probably needs improvement - and I expect I've missed some other
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
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
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
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
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
On 08/07/2012 02:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I did not commit the advanced.sgml changes.
That's arguably the most important point to raise this. The most recent
question came from someone who actually bothered to RTFM and believed
based on the advanced-transactions page that rollback rolls
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Craig Ringer ring...@ringerc.id.au wrote:
On 08/07/2012 02:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I did not commit the advanced.sgml changes.
That's arguably the most important point to raise this. The most recent
question came from someone who actually bothered to RTFM
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Craig Ringer ring...@ringerc.id.au wrote:
On 08/07/2012 02:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I did not commit the advanced.sgml changes.
That's arguably the most important point to raise this. The most
recent question came from someone who actually bothered
On Tuesday, August 07, 2012 09:45:35 AM Kevin Grittner wrote:
[...snipped...]
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
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 03:59:42PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 08/07/2012 02:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I did not commit the advanced.sgml changes.
That's arguably the most important point to raise this. The most
recent question came from someone who actually bothered to RTFM and
believed
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 12:56 AM, Craig Ringer ring...@ringerc.id.au wrote:
On 08/04/2012 04:12 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
I haven't reviewed it in detail but noticed an apparent editing error:
which are used the counters should probably have an as thrown in there.
Or something.
Thanks.
Hi all
I'm seeing enough questions on pgsql-general and stack overflow to
suggest that the docs for how sequences interact with transaction
rollback. Take the most recent post on -general, where the person read
at least the tutorial, but had no idea about the exemption.
The attached patch:
Craig Ringer ring...@ringerc.id.au wrote:
I'm seeing enough questions on pgsql-general and stack overflow
to suggest that the docs for how sequences interact with
transaction rollback.
Yeah, I've noticed a surprising number of people who are being
surprised by the non-transactional nature
On 08/04/2012 04:12 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
I haven't reviewed it in detail but noticed an apparent editing error:
which are used the counters should probably have an as thrown in
there. Or something.
Thanks. Editing fail. I revised that spot repeatedly to try to keep it
short and simple
18 matches
Mail list logo
