Re: docs: additional subsection for page-level locks in explicit-locking section

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: docs: additional subsection for page-level locks in explicit-locking section
Date: 2014-07-04 02:45:22
Message-ID: CAHGQGwH26ZURn_ypNbha3kTLYfbi8qQ-S3-=ZVAKOQoKmM-Fwg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> wrote:
> Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> This seems to make sense. Barring objection, I will commit this
>> only in HEAD.

Committed.

> I'm inclined to think this is a slight improvement, just for the
> sake of consistency with peer level information. You probably
> already noticed, but the patch as submitted neglects to close the
> prior sect2 block before opening the new one.

Yes, thanks for pointing out that!

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message gotoschool6g 2014-07-04 02:47:06 Re: Can simplify 'limit 1' with slow function?
Previous Message Tom Dunstan 2014-07-04 02:22:47 Re: "RETURNING PRIMARY KEY" syntax extension