| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: hot standby documentation |
| Date: | 2010-06-23 19:05:33 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTilad0WyVX747CxSc-IDo6Mm5SGYMU2ObDWKRxpj@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 14:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> Fixed. See attached.
>
> I started reading this but by chunk seven I only agree with a couple of
> these changes. None of them seem hugely important changes.
>
> I'd suggest you make a pass of copy editing that doesn't seek to alter
> the meanings or add information, so we can agree without discussing each
> proposed change in detail. Definitely don't remove information.
I've actually removed very little. The current text repeats some
information or splits up related facts across different paragraphs.
> It's not impossible to believe that temp tables could be written in the
> future, so I disagree with the comments there.
The text I wrote does not say that temp tables could not be written in
the future. It simply says why they cannot be written now.
> We could also allow SELECT ... FOR SHARE during Hot Standby, simply by
> making it same as normal SELECT, without any ill effects.
True.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-06-23 19:14:41 | Re: hot standby documentation |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-06-23 18:53:54 | Re: hot standby documentation |