On 08/21/2012 11:18 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
Trying again with the attachments; the archiver only seemed to see the first
patch despite all three being attached. Including patches inline; if you
want 'em prettier, see:
https://github.com/ri
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Trying again with the attachments; the archiver only seemed to see the first
> patch despite all three being attached. Including patches inline; if you
> want 'em prettier, see:
>
> https://github.com/ringerc/postgres/tree/sequence_documenta
Trying again with the attachments; the archiver only seemed to see the
first patch despite all three being attached. Including patches inline;
if you want 'em prettier, see:
https://github.com/ringerc/postgres/tree/sequence_documentation_fixes
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Make sure you can't read t
On 08/19/2012 03:01 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>Or would you instead say that
>"changes made to a sequence are immediately visible to all other
>transactions" ?
Yes, that sounds better.
OK, how about the attached series, then?
The 2nd probably needs improvement - and I expect I've missed some othe
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 08/07/2012 09:45 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>
>> I also think it's a problem that one can get through the entire
>> "Concurrency Control" chapter (mvcc.sgml) without a clue that
>> sequences aren't transactional. I think maybe a mention in
On 08/18/2012 05:19 PM, Nicolas Barbier wrote:
2012/8/7 Kevin Grittner :
I also think it's a problem that one can get through the entire
"Concurrency Control" chapter (mvcc.sgml) without a clue that
sequences aren't transactional.
It is possible to say that they *are* transactional when consi
2012/8/7 Kevin Grittner :
> I also think it's a problem that one can get through the entire
> "Concurrency Control" chapter (mvcc.sgml) without a clue that
> sequences aren't transactional.
It is possible to say that they *are* transactional when considering
the following definition: nextval() do
On 08/07/2012 09:45 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
I also think it's a problem that one can get through the entire
"Concurrency Control" chapter (mvcc.sgml) without a clue that
sequences aren't transactional.
I'm also wondering about adding something like the following summary of
features with odd
On 08/07/2012 09:45 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
I also think it's a problem that one can get through the entire
"Concurrency Control" chapter (mvcc.sgml) without a clue that
sequences aren't transactional. I think maybe a mention in the
Introduction section of that chapter with a would be
appropr
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 03:59:42PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 08/07/2012 02:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >I did not commit the advanced.sgml changes.
>
> That's arguably the most important point to raise this. The most
> recent question came from someone who actually bothered to RTFM and
> bel
On Tuesday, August 07, 2012 09:45:35 AM Kevin Grittner wrote:
[...snipped...]
> I also think it's a problem that one can get through the entire
> "Concurrency Control" chapter (mvcc.sgml) without a clue that
> sequences aren't transactional. I think maybe a mention in the
> Introduction section of
Robert Haas wrote:
> Craig Ringer wrote:
>> On 08/07/2012 02:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>
>>> I did not commit the advanced.sgml changes.
>>
>> That's arguably the most important point to raise this. The most
>> recent question came from someone who actually bothered to RTFM
>> and believed base
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 08/07/2012 02:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> I did not commit the advanced.sgml changes.
>
> That's arguably the most important point to raise this. The most recent
> question came from someone who actually bothered to RTFM and believed bas
On 08/07/2012 02:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I did not commit the advanced.sgml changes.
That's arguably the most important point to raise this. The most recent
question came from someone who actually bothered to RTFM and believed
based on the advanced-transactions page that rollback rolls *eve
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 12:56 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 08/04/2012 04:12 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> I haven't reviewed it in detail but noticed an apparent editing error:
>> "which are used the counters" should probably have an "as" thrown in there.
>> Or something.
>
> Thanks. Editing fail. I
On 08/04/2012 04:12 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
I haven't reviewed it in detail but noticed an apparent editing error:
"which are used the counters" should probably have an "as" thrown in
there. Or something.
Thanks. Editing fail. I revised that spot repeatedly to try to keep it
short and simp
Craig Ringer wrote:
> I'm seeing enough questions on pgsql-general and stack overflow
> to suggest that the docs for how sequences interact with
> transaction rollback.
Yeah, I've noticed a surprising number of people who are being
surprised by the non-transactional nature of sequences (and se
17 matches
Mail list logo
