Re: Questions about document "Concurrenry control" section

On 2024-10-12 09:02:37 -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote: > On 10/12/24 03:17, Peter J. Holzer wrote: > > On 2024-10-11 21:21:16 -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote: > > > On 10/11/24 20:10, admin@iseki.space wrote: > > > > I found. Maybe we should reply to the mailing list only. Otherwise we'll > > > > receive mu

Re: Questions about document "Concurrenry control" section

On 10/12/24 03:17, Peter J. Holzer wrote: On 2024-10-11 21:21:16 -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote: On 10/11/24 20:10, admin@iseki.space wrote: I found. Maybe we should reply to the mailing list only. Otherwise we'll receive multiple copies of the emails. Not if you go here: https://lists.postgre

Re: Questions about document "Concurrenry control" section

Yes, this is IMOP, the best way. I have set up Thunderbird to throw everything that is not in my contact list to Trash, thus your email will never be read by me if you don't use - Reply to Mailing list -. Just saying. On 2024-10-11 11:10 p.m., admin@iseki.space wrote: I found. Maybe we should

Re: Questions about document "Concurrenry control" section

On 2024-10-11 21:21:16 -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote: > On 10/11/24 20:10, admin@iseki.space wrote: > > I found. Maybe we should reply to the mailing list only. Otherwise we'll > > receive multiple copies of the emails. > > > > > > Not if you go here: > > https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/ > >

Re: Questions about document "Concurrenry control" section

On 2024-10-12 10:25:08 +0800, iseki zero wrote: > So, should I use the [reply to all] button? This mailing-list (like most lists) sets the "List-Post" header: List-Post: So the best thing would be for the mail program to detect that and offer a [reply

Re: Questions about document "Concurrenry control" section

On 10/11/24 20:10, admin@iseki.space wrote: I found. Maybe we should reply to the mailing list only. Otherwise we'll receive multiple copies of the emails. Not if you go here: https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/ and check: Don't receive an extra copy of mails when listed in To or CC fiel

Re: Questions about document "Concurrenry control" section

I found. Maybe we should reply to the mailing list only. Otherwise we'll receive multiple copies of the emails.

Re: Questions about document "Concurrenry control" section

On Friday, October 11, 2024, iseki zero wrote: > So, should I use the [reply to all] button? I'm afraid the receipt list > will growing to have too many address. > > Yes, just use reply-all. The to list only grows when people reply, and it is a mailing list - all these people are getting the ema

Re: Questions about document "Concurrenry control" section

So, should I use the [reply to all] button? I'm afraid the receipt list will growing to have too many address. BTW, I'm using Thunderbird. If you have better software, tell me please. Sorry for my poor English. iseki zero. 在 2024/10/11 22:19, Tom Lane 写道: Erik Wienhold writes: On 2024-10-11

Re: Questions about document "Concurrenry control" section

Erik Wienhold writes: > On 2024-10-11 15:00 +0200, iseki wrote: >> But why the mailing list haven't use the "Reply-To" header specify where to >> reply? Because the mail is you send to me directly? > The message author sets Reply-To, if necessary, according to RFC 5322. > Are there mailing lists

Re: Questions about document "Concurrenry control" section

On 2024-10-11 15:00 +0200, iseki wrote: > Oh sorry, I should use [reply to all] instead of [reply]. I don't have much > experience with mailing lists... > > But why the mailing list haven't use the "Reply-To" header specify where to > reply? Because the mail is you send to me directly? The messag

Re: Questions about document "Concurrenry control" section

Oh sorry, I should use [reply to all] instead of [reply]. I don't have much experience with mailing lists... But why the mailing list haven't use the "Reply-To" header specify where to reply? Because the mail is you send to me directly? Thank you. On 2024/10/11 14:53, Laurenz Albe wrote: On

Re: Questions about document "Concurrenry control" section

On Wed, 2024-10-09 at 18:07 +0800, iseki zero wrote: > I found it difficult to understanding some paragraph in the document > "Concurrency control" section. > >  > The Repeatable Read mode provides a rigorous guarantee that each > transaction sees a completely stable view of the database. Howeve