On 2019-02-07 09:16:09 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 4:57 PM David Rowley
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 at 16:20, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > I agree that the docs need to be updated and this patch should be
> > > backpatched as well. However, I think the older wording wa
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 4:57 PM David Rowley
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 at 16:20, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > I agree that the docs need to be updated and this patch should be
> > backpatched as well. However, I think the older wording was more
> > descriptive and clear, so I have modified your pat
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 at 16:20, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I agree that the docs need to be updated and this patch should be
> backpatched as well. However, I think the older wording was more
> descriptive and clear, so I have modified your patch a bit to retain
> part of old wording, see the result as at
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 2:14 PM David Rowley
wrote:
>
> The docs in PG11 and master both state:
>
> When an UPDATE causes a row to move from one partition to another,
> there is a chance that another concurrent UPDATE or DELETE misses this
> row. Suppose session 1 is performing an UPDATE on a parti
