Re: Word-smithing doc changes

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>

To: Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>

Cc: "<pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>

Date: 2011-06-28T17:26:23Z

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 →

Expand warnings on locks acquired by CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY
- a03feb9354bd 9.2.0 cited

Excerpts from Greg Stark's message of sáb jun 25 21:01:36 -0400 2011:
> I think this commit was ill-advised:
> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=a03feb9354bda5084f19cc952bc52ba7be89f372

> Seems way to implementation-specific and detailed for a user to make
> heads or tails of. Except in the sections talking about locking
> internals we don't talk about "shared locks on virtual transactions
> identifiers" we just talk about waiting for a transaction to complete.

Hmm, right.

> And looping over the transactions one by one is purely an
> implementation detail and uninteresting to users. Also it uses
> ill-defined terms like "active transactions", "potentially interfering
> older transactions", and  "original index" -- from the user's point of
> view there's only one index and it just isn't completely built yet.

Wow, that's a lot of mistakes for a single paragraph, sorry about that.

> Are we not yet in string-freeze though? I'll go ahead and edit it if
> people don't mind. I'm curious to see the original complaint though.

I don't -- please go ahead.

Original complaint in Message-id 4DDB64CB.7070109@2ndQuadrant.com

-- 
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support