Re: Will PQregisterThreadLock() be documented?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Volkan YAZICI <volkan(dot)yazici(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Will PQregisterThreadLock() be documented?
Date: 2005-10-16 17:52:29
Message-ID: 9101.1129485149@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs pgsql-patches

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Really? Do we intend applications to call it?

> Uh, well, we never call it ourselves, so if we don't expect other
> applications to call it, why is it there?

If it's intended for apps to call, how was the patch initially accepted
with no documentation?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-10-16 18:21:31 Re: Will PQregisterThreadLock() be documented?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2005-10-16 17:15:45 Re: Will PQregisterThreadLock() be documented?

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Euler Taveira de Oliveira 2005-10-16 17:57:58 small typo
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-10-16 17:38:53 Re: [HACKERS] Patching dblink.c to avoid warning about open transaction