Re: Word-smithing doc changes

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Greg Stark's message of sb 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(dot)7070109(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com

I have simplified the concurrent index build docs with the attached
patch.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

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