Re: Word-smithing doc changes
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>, "<pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-11-30T13:18:44Z
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
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:02 AM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I will happily accept that the description there may have suffered from me > not using all of the terms optimally, and that the resulting commit could be > improved. Some more feedback to get the description correct and useful > would be much appreciated. > > What I cannot agree with is that idea that the implementation details I > suggested documenting should not be. There are extremely user-hostile > things that can happen here, and that are unique to this command. Saying > "this is too complicated for users to make heads or tails of" may very well > be true in many cases, but I think it's not giving PostgreSQL users very > much credit. And when problems with this happen, and I wouldn't have spent > any time on this if they didn't, right now the only way to make heads or > tails of it is to read the source code. +1. If we only document approximately how it works, then that's less work, but it's also less useful. Greg's attempt to document *exactly* how it works was kind of klunky, but I think that can and should be improved, not replaced with wording that's more vague and therefore easier to write. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company