On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Sorry for not paying attention sooner. After studying it for awhile, >>> I think the change is probably all right but your proposed comment is >>> entirely inadequate. > >> If you don't like that version, can you suggest something you would like >> better? > > Perhaps like this: > > * We assume the entry requires exclusive lock on each TABLE or TABLE DATA > * item listed among its dependencies. Originally all of these would have > * been TABLE items, but repoint_table_dependencies would have repointed > * them to the TABLE DATA items if those are present (which they might not > * be, eg in a schema-only dump). Note that all of the entries we are > * processing here are POST_DATA; otherwise there might be a significant > * difference between a dependency on a table and a dependency on its > * data, so that closer analysis would be needed here.
Works for me. I'll push with that text unless you'd like to take care of it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
