Re: Single-Transaction Utility options - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Single-Transaction Utility options
Date
Msg-id 200512182151.24517.peter_e@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Single-Transaction Utility options  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Single-Transaction Utility options  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: Single-Transaction Utility options  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> I believe Peter's question was rhetorical: what he meant to point out
> is that the documentation needs to explain what is the reason for
> having this switch, ie, in what cases would you use it or not use it?
> Just saying what it does isn't really adequate docs.

I once considered implementing this myself but found it infeasible for
some reason I don't remember.  Nevertheless I always thought that
having an atomic restore ought to be a non-optional feature.  Are there
situations where one would not want to use it?  (And if so, which one
is the more normal case?)

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Single-Transaction Utility options
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Single-Transaction Utility options