On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 07:46:32AM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> There is much wisdom there and much wisdom in leaving ancient warnings
> as we find them.
The comment is a wise and insightful statement -- about a totally
different system than we have today.
> Are these the words you object to?
>
>
Robert Haas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> I think its funny and scary, as well as being of historical
>> interest.
Well, I something of a similar reaction, but I think that's
outweighed by the probable waste of time for anyone trying to make
sense of it.
> I think we should just remove it.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Kevin Grittner
> wrote:
>
>> What part of it do you find to be accurate or helpful?
>
> I think its funny and scary, as well as being of historical interest.
>
> But please suggest a new wording so we can discus
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> What part of it do you find to be accurate or helpful?
I think its funny and scary, as well as being of historical interest.
But please suggest a new wording so we can discuss it.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.
Simon Riggs wrote:
> Dan Ports wrote:
>> While mucking around in src/backend/utils/time/tqual.c today, I
>> noticed the following comment attached to HeapTupleSatisfiesNow:
>> [a comment explaining that if you think the code needs to be
>> changed, you are wrong, because 2 phase locking will
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Dan Ports wrote:
> While mucking around in src/backend/utils/time/tqual.c today, I noticed
> the following comment attached to HeapTupleSatisfiesNow:
>
> * mao says 17 march 1993: the tests in this routine are correct;
> * if you think they're not, you'
While mucking around in src/backend/utils/time/tqual.c today, I noticed
the following comment attached to HeapTupleSatisfiesNow:
* mao says 17 march 1993: the tests in this routine are correct;
* if you think they're not, you're wrong, and you should think
* about it again. i k
