Re: Lock compatibility matrix

I had this in a different form, but reworked so that it matches the doc
patch that Teodor submitted earlier. I think it would be good to have this
information in the lock.h file as well.

Thanks,
Pavan

--

EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> I had this in a different form, but reworked so that it matches the
> doc patch that Teodor submitted earlier. I think it would be good to
> have this information in the lock.h file as well.

Why would we want to have two redundant copies of the same information?

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

On 1/30/07, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>
> Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> > I had this in a different form, but reworked so that it matches the
> > doc patch that Teodor submitted earlier. I think it would be good to
> > have this information in the lock.h file as well.
>
> Why would we want to have two redundant copies of the same information?

IMHO its useful to have this information in the source code, just like many
other comments. It improves the readability of the code while documentation
acts as a reference.

But I am not sure whats the generally accepted practice for PostgresQL,
so I may be wrong here.

Thanks,
Pavan

--

EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 11:09 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> > I had this in a different form, but reworked so that it matches the
> > doc patch that Teodor submitted earlier. I think it would be good to
> > have this information in the lock.h file as well.
>
> Why would we want to have two redundant copies of the same information?

The lock information is not available anywhere in the form of a matrix.

I've personally found a matrix useful for application design, though
that hasn't influenced Pavan's independent creation of exactly that.

--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 11:09 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Why would we want to have two redundant copies of the same information?

> The lock information is not available anywhere in the form of a matrix.

Sure, but at this point we have proposals for adding two different matrix
representations, both redundant with the textual description. I don't
mind adding one of the two, but both seems overkill.

regards, tom lane

Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Why would we want to have two redundant copies of the same
> > information?
>
> The lock information is not available anywhere in the form of a
> matrix.

But it will be. A patch for the documentation has been proposed.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 21:33 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > Why would we want to have two redundant copies of the same
> > > information?
> >
> > The lock information is not available anywhere in the form of a
> > matrix.
>
> But it will be. A patch for the documentation has been proposed.

Cool. When that's done, we probably don't need the code version.

Would've been helpful if you'd explained what you meant... not many
people read all posts on all lists.

--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

> representations, both redundant with the textual description. I don't
Docs patch is in SGML table representation, text view is a demonstration in mail.

--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/