Re: New docs chapter on Transaction Management and related changes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: New docs chapter on Transaction Management and related changes
Date
Msg-id Y4jMtPHYgIFxh+O5@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: New docs chapter on Transaction Management and related changes  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: New docs chapter on Transaction Management and related changes  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 12:31:55PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> > I find it a bit shocking to have had it backpatched, even to 15 -- a
> > whole chapter in the documentation?  I don't see why it wouldn't be
> > treated like any other "major feature" patch, which we only consider for
> > the development branch.  Also, this is a first cut -- presumably we'll
> > want to copy-edit it before it becomes released material.
> 
> I think that last point is fairly convincing.  I've not read the
> new material, but I didn't get further than the first line of
> the new chapter file before noting a copy-and-paste error:
> 
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/doc/src/sgml/xact.sgml
> @@ -0,0 +1,205 @@
> +<!-- doc/src/sgml/mvcc.sgml -->

Fixed in master.

> That doesn't leave me with a warm feeling that it's ready to ship.
> I too vote for reverting it out of the released branches.

Patch reverted in all back branches.  I was hoping to get support for
more aggressive backpatches of docs, but obviously failed.  I should
have been clearer about my intent to backpatch, and will have to
consider these issues in future doc backpatches.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

Embrace your flaws.  They make you human, rather than perfect,
which you will never be.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: pg_upgrade: Make testing different transfer modes easier
Next
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Temporary tables versus wraparound... again