On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Craig Ringer <ring...@ringerc.id.au> 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_documentation_fixes > > > Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Make sure you can't read through mvcc.sgml without > realising that not everything is MVCC. >
The first of these three patches looks good to me, so I committed it. I am not convinced that the others are ready to go in. AFAICS, there hasn't been any discussion of whether a list of non-transactional features would be a useful thing to have, or if so where it should be located in the docs and what should go into it. I'm not necessarily opposed to adding something, but I think it needs some actual discussion before we commit anything. -- 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