On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:02 AM, Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I will happily accept that the description there may have suffered from me > not using all of the terms optimally, and that the resulting commit could be > improved. Some more feedback to get the description correct and useful > would be much appreciated. > > What I cannot agree with is that idea that the implementation details I > suggested documenting should not be. There are extremely user-hostile > things that can happen here, and that are unique to this command. Saying > "this is too complicated for users to make heads or tails of" may very well > be true in many cases, but I think it's not giving PostgreSQL users very > much credit. And when problems with this happen, and I wouldn't have spent > any time on this if they didn't, right now the only way to make heads or > tails of it is to read the source code.
+1. If we only document approximately how it works, then that's less work, but it's also less useful. Greg's attempt to document *exactly* how it works was kind of klunky, but I think that can and should be improved, not replaced with wording that's more vague and therefore easier to write. -- 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
