Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > On 06/05/2015 08:07 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >> From my side, it is only recently I got some clear answers to my questions > >>about how it worked. I think it is very important that major features have > >>extensive README type documentation with them so the underlying principles > >>used > >>in the development are clear. I would define the measure of a good feature > >>as > >>whether another committer can read the code comments and get a good feel. A > >>bad > >>feature is one where committers walk away from it, saying I don't really > >>get it > >>and I can't read an explanation of why it does that. Tom's most significant > >>contribution is his long descriptive comments on what the problem is that > >>need > >>to be solved, the options and the method chosen. Clarity of thought is what > >>solves bugs. > > > >Yes, I think we should have done that early-on for multi-xact, and I am > >hopeful we will learn to do that more often when complex features are > >implemented, or when we identify areas that are more complex than we > >thought. > > I see this idea of the README as very useful. There are far more people like > me in this community than Simon or Alvaro. I can test, I can break things, I > can script up a harness but I need to be understand HOW and the README would > help allow for that.
There is a src/backend/access/README.tuplock that attempts to describe multixacts. Is that not sufficient? Now that I think about it, this file hasn't been updated with the latest changes, so it's probably a bit outdated now. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
