Re: doc: Bring mention of unique index forced transaction wait behavior outside of the internal section

On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 09:07:42AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> 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.

I was not happy with putting this in the Transaction Isolation section.
I rewrote it and put it in the INSERT secion, right before ON CONFLICT; 
patch attached.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Indecision is a decision.  Inaction is an action.  Mark Batterson