Re: locking [user] catalog tables vs 2pc vs logical rep - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: locking [user] catalog tables vs 2pc vs logical rep
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1LL+dF9Yn9NbvO3HP5dnCWKTDczc9UrSqwCohKaFJa+jw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE: locking [user] catalog tables vs 2pc vs logical rep  ("osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com" <osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 12:03 PM osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com
<osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, June 9, 2021 12:06 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 6:24 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > 3) Should [user] catalog tables be catalog tables or user catalog
> > > tables [user] catalog tables
> > >
> >
> > The third point is not clear. Can you please elaborate by quoting the exact
> > change from the patch?
> IIUC, he means to replace all descriptions "[user] catalog tables"
> with "catalog tables or user catalog tables" in the patch,
> because seemingly we don't use square brackets to describe optional clause in
> normal descriptions(like outside of synopsis and I don't find any example for this).
> But, even if so, I would like to keep the current square brackets description,
> which makes sentence short and simple.
>

+1.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Date:
Subject: Re: Logical replication keepalive flood
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: logical replication of truncate command with trigger causes Assert