| From: | Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Subject: | Re: patch: update README-SSI |
| Date: | 2011-06-16 17:33:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20110616173356.GD83336@csail.mit.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
Dan
--
Dan R. K. Ports MIT CSAIL http://drkp.net/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-16 17:34:22 | Re: Re: starting to review the Extend NOT NULL representation to pg_constraint patch |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-16 17:32:31 | Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users |