Re: doc: Bring mention of unique index forced transaction wait behavior outside of the internal section
| От | David G. Johnston |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: doc: Bring mention of unique index forced transaction wait behavior outside of the internal section |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAKFQuwYGy3rX=G+dVgbthhDRvsEzk9jR6Tj0QGV9C8ALvUAxOQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: doc: Bring mention of unique index forced transaction wait behavior outside of the internal section (Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: doc: Bring mention of unique index forced transaction wait behavior outside of the internal section
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 6:49 AM Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com> wrote:
Hi David,
> It's basically a glorified cross-reference. I didn't dislike directing the reader to the internals section enough to try and establish a better location for the main content.
One problem I see is that:
+ [..], but as there is no pre-existing data, visibility checks are unnecessary.
... allows a wide variety of interpretations, most of which will be
wrong. And all in all I find an added paragraph somewhat cryptic.
Yeah, I'd probably have to say "but since no existing record is being modified, visibility checks are unnecessary".
Is there a specific mis-interpretation that first came to mind for you that I can consider specifically?
If the goal is to add a cross-reference I suggest keeping it short,
something like "For additional details on various corner cases please
see ...".
That does work, and I may end up there, but it feels unsatisfying to be so vague/general.
David J.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: