Tom Lane wrote:
> I believe Peter's question was rhetorical: what he meant to point out
> is that the documentation needs to explain what is the reason for
> having this switch, ie, in what cases would you use it or not use it?
> Just saying what it does isn't really adequate docs.
I once considered implementing this myself but found it infeasible for
some reason I don't remember. Nevertheless I always thought that
having an atomic restore ought to be a non-optional feature. Are there
situations where one would not want to use it? (And if so, which one
is the more normal case?)
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2005-12-18 21:28:21|
|Subject: Re: Single-Transaction Utility options|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-12-18 19:04:53|
|Subject: Re: Single-Transaction Utility options |