On 16.06.2011 20:33, Dan Ports wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 04:39:09PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> There's no mention on what T1 is. I believe it's supposed to be Tin, in
>> the terminology used in the graph.
>
> Yes, I changed the naming after I originally wrote it, and missed a
> couple spots. T1 should be Tin.
>
>> I don't see how there can be a ww-dependency between T0 and Tin. There
>> can't be a rw-conflict because Tin is read-only, so surely there can't
>> be a ww-conflict either?
>
> Yes, it can only be a wr-conflict. Good catch.
Ok, I'll commit with those changes.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
