Horton

Re: Word-smithing doc changes

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

View thread
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-08-04T14:35:49Z
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

On Fri, Aug  3, 2012 at 01:23:53PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Aug  3, 2012 at 12:55:30PM -0400, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I wasn't planning to, but will do as you suggest for 9.1.

Done.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +