Re: [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> 
> On 06/05/2015 08:07 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> >> From my side, it is only recently I got some clear answers to my questions
> >>about how it worked. I think it is very important that major features have
> >>extensive README type documentation with them so the underlying principles used
> >>in the development are clear. I would define the measure of a good feature as
> >>whether another committer can read the code comments and get a good feel. A bad
> >>feature is one where committers walk away from it, saying I don't really get it
> >>and I can't read an explanation of why it does that. Tom's most significant
> >>contribution is his long descriptive comments on what the problem is that need
> >>to be solved, the options and the method chosen. Clarity of thought is what
> >>solves bugs.
> >
> >Yes, I think we should have done that early-on for multi-xact, and I am
> >hopeful we will learn to do that more often when complex features are
> >implemented, or when we identify areas that are more complex than we
> >thought.
> 
> I see this idea of the README as very useful. There are far more people like
> me in this community than Simon or Alvaro. I can test, I can break things, I
> can script up a harness but I need to be understand HOW and the README would
> help allow for that.

There is a src/backend/access/README.tuplock that attempts to describe
multixacts.  Is that not sufficient?

Now that I think about it, this file hasn't been updated with the latest
changes, so it's probably a bit outdated now.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services