| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Steve Singer <ssinger_pg(at)sympatico(dot)ca>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Review: Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies |
| Date: | 2011-02-24 16:02:57 |
| Message-ID: | 11659.1298563377@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> writes:
> On 2011-02-24 5:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Oh, did we decide to do it that way? OK with me, but the submitted docs
>> are woefully inadequate on the point. This behavior is going to have to
>> be explained extremely clearly (and even so, I bet we'll get bug reports
>> about it :-().
> I'm ready to put more effort into the documentation if the patch is
> going in, but I really don't want to waste my time just to hear that the
> patch is not going to be in 9.1. Does this sound acceptable?
I've found some things I don't like about it, but the only part that
seems far short of being committable is the documentation.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-02-24 16:20:48 | wCTE: about the name of the feature |
| Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2011-02-24 15:57:27 | Re: Review: Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies |