| From: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_get_multixact_members not documented |
| Date: | 2025-06-30 15:56:36 |
| Message-ID: | CAA5RZ0s=ovfQsQss_G8v6Q8NnmS590W6b0SvHjBg6VTCi6xzbg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Sure, I am not against keeping the function in an existing section, but
> we should remove the description mentioned above for clarity.
to be clear, I am suggesting we just remove the second sentence
in the description. Therefore, instead of:
"The functions shown in Table 9.84 provide server transaction information
in an exportable form. The main use of these functions is to determine which
transactions were committed between two snapshots."
mention only:
"The functions shown in Table 9.84 provide server transaction
information in an exportable form."
I don't think we need to add anything else.
--
Sami
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2025-06-30 16:27:10 | Re: postmaster uses more CPU in 18 beta1 with io_method=io_uring |
| Previous Message | Maxim Orlov | 2025-06-30 15:49:20 | Re: Issue with custom operator in simple case |