On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 01:23:53PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:55:30PM -0400, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of vie ago 03 09:59:36 -0400 2012:
> > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:26:56AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > The concurrent index documentation under discussion above was never
> > > > updated, so I took a stab at it, attached.
> > > >
> > > > Greg, I looked at adding a mention of the virtual transaction wait to
> > > > the "explicit-locking" section as you suggested, and found those were
> > > > all user-visible locking, while this is internal locking. I did find a
> > > > clear description of transaction id locking in the pg_locks system view
> > > > docs, so I just referenced that.
> > >
> > > I found a way to clarify the wording further; patch attached.
> >
> > Looks sane to me.
> >
> > Are we backpatching this to 9.1? I no longer remember if the original
> > wording is there or just in 9.2.
>
> I wasn't planning to, but will do as you suggest for 9.1.
Done.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
