Re: doc: Bring mention of unique index forced transaction wait behavior outside of the internal section

On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 6:49 AM Aleksander Alekseev <
aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> > It's basically a glorified cross-reference. I didn't dislike directing
> the reader to the internals section enough to try and establish a better
> location for the main content.
>
> One problem I see is that:
>
> + [..], but as there is no pre-existing data, visibility checks are
> unnecessary.
>
> ... allows a wide variety of interpretations, most of which will be
> wrong. And all in all I find an added paragraph somewhat cryptic.

Yeah, I'd probably have to say "but since no existing record is being
modified, visibility checks are unnecessary".

Is there a specific mis-interpretation that first came to mind for you that
I can consider specifically?

>
> If the goal is to add a cross-reference I suggest keeping it short,
> something like "For additional details on various corner cases please
> see ...".
>
>
That does work, and I may end up there, but it feels unsatisfying to be so
vague/general.

David J.