| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
|---|
| From: | Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | docs: additional subsection for page-level locks in explicit-locking section |
| Date: | 2014-07-02 19:34:50 |
| Message-ID: | 1404329690.28996.13.camel@hartree.muc.credativ.lan |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
While reading through the Explicit Locking section of the manual today,
I felt the last paragraph of section 13.3.2. (Row-level Locks) might
merit its own subsection. It talks about page-level locks as distinct
from table- and row-level locks. Then again, it is just one paragraph,
so maybe this was deliberate and/or rejected before (though I couldn't
find prior discussion off-hand). Proposed patch attached.
Cheers,
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Projektleiter / Berater
Tel.: +49 (2161) 4643-171
Fax: +49 (2161) 4643-100
Email: michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de
credativ GmbH, HRB Mönchengladbach 12080
USt-ID-Nummer: DE204566209
Hohenzollernstr. 133, 41061 Mönchengladbach
Geschäftsführung: Dr. Michael Meskes, Jörg Folz, Sascha Heuer
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| postgresql-sgml.diff | text/x-patch | 540 bytes |
| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: docs: additional subsection for page-level locks in explicit-locking section |
| Date: | 2014-07-03 13:14:06 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwFbfPZA5sqoj3gymbO2wCBw0gLZmC+ZzqgWi1V3zn9W2g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 4:34 AM, Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While reading through the Explicit Locking section of the manual today,
> I felt the last paragraph of section 13.3.2. (Row-level Locks) might
> merit its own subsection. It talks about page-level locks as distinct
> from table- and row-level locks. Then again, it is just one paragraph,
> so maybe this was deliberate and/or rejected before (though I couldn't
> find prior discussion off-hand). Proposed patch attached.
This seems to make sense. Barring objection, I will commit this only in HEAD.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: docs: additional subsection for page-level locks in explicit-locking section |
| Date: | 2014-07-03 15:51:36 |
| Message-ID: | 1404402696.86163.YahooMailNeo@web122303.mail.ne1.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> This seems to make sense. Barring objection, I will commit this
> only in HEAD.
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.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| 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 |
| 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