On Thursday, June 10, 2021 1:14 PM vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> > On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 12:03 PM osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com > <osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, June 9, 2021 12:06 PM Amit Kapila > <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 6:24 PM vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks for the updated patch. > > > > > > > > I have few comments: > > > > 1) Should we list the actual system tables like > > > > pg_class,pg_trigger, etc instead of any other catalog table? > > > > User has issued an explicit LOCK on pg_class (or any other catalog > > > > table) > > > > > > > > > > I think the way it is mentioned is okay. We don't need to specify > > > other catalog tables. > > Okay. > > > > > > > > 2) Here This means deadlock, after this we mention deadlock again > > > > for each of the examples, we can remove it if redundant. > > > > This can happen in the following ways: > > I think this sentence works to notify that commands described below > > are major scenarios naturally, to the readers. Then, I don't want to remove > it. > > > > If you somehow feel that the descriptions are redundant, how about > > unifying all listitems as nouns. like below ? > > > > * An explicit <command>LOCK</command> on > > <structname>pg_class</structname> (or any other catalog table) in a > > transaction > > * Reordering <structname>pg_class</structname> by > > <command>CLUSTER</command> command in a transaction > > * Executing <command>TRUNCATE</command> on user_catalog_table > > > > This looks good to me. Keep the 2PC documentation patch also on the same > lines. Yeah, of course. Thanks for your confirmation.
Best Regards, Takamichi Osumi