On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 04:39:09PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > There's no mention on what T1 is. I believe it's supposed to be Tin, in > the terminology used in the graph.
Yes, I changed the naming after I originally wrote it, and missed a couple spots. T1 should be Tin. > I don't see how there can be a ww-dependency between T0 and Tin. There > can't be a rw-conflict because Tin is read-only, so surely there can't > be a ww-conflict either? Yes, it can only be a wr-conflict. Good catch. Dan -- Dan R. K. Ports MIT CSAIL http://drkp.net/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
