Horton

Re: Word-smithing doc changes

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>

View thread
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-08-03T16:55:30Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Expand warnings on locks acquired by CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY

Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of vie ago 03 09:59:36 -0400 2012:
> On Fri, Aug  3, 2012 at 12:26:56AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > The concurrent index documentation under discussion above was never
> > updated, so I took a stab at it, attached.
> > 
> > Greg, I looked at adding a mention of the virtual transaction wait to
> > the "explicit-locking" section as you suggested, and found those were
> > all user-visible locking, while this is internal locking.  I did find a
> > clear description of transaction id locking in the pg_locks system view
> > docs, so I just referenced that.
> 
> I found a way to clarify the wording further;  patch attached.

Looks sane to me.

Are we backpatching this to 9.1?  I no longer remember if the original
wording is there or just in 9.2.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>