| From: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [DOCS] HOT - correct claim about indexes not referencing old line pointers |
| Date: | 2024-03-23 21:43:07 |
| Message-ID: | CAAaqYe-V3XmkAkhnzuLgiyaCwddDEEF6bpV+xA+8FZzW9sBHuQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 1:09 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 9:07 PM James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > If the goal here is the most minimal patch possible, then please
> > commit what you proposed. I am interested in improving the document
> > further, but I don't know how to do that easily if the requirement is
> > effectively "must only change one specific detail at a time".
>
> So, yesterday I wrote a long email on how I saw the goals here.
> Despite our disagreements, I believe we agree that the text I proposed
> is better than what's there, so I've committed that change now. I've
> also marked the CF entry as committed. Please propose the other
> changes you want separately.
Thanks for committing the fix.
Regards,
James Coleman
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2024-03-23 22:10:35 | Re: pg_dump versus enum types, round N+1 |
| Previous Message | James Coleman | 2024-03-23 21:42:39 | Re: [DOCS] HOT - correct claim about indexes not referencing old line pointers |