On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>> This seems to make sense. Barring objection, I will commit this
>> only in HEAD.
Committed.
> I'm inclined to think this is a slight improvement, just for the
> sake of consistency with peer level information. You
Fujii Masao wrote:
> This seems to make sense. Barring objection, I will commit this
> only in HEAD.
I'm inclined to think this is a slight improvement, just for the
sake of consistency with peer level information. You probably
already noticed, but the patch as submitted neglects to close the
p
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 4:34 AM, Michael Banck wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While reading through the Explicit Locking section of the manual today,
> I felt the last paragraph of section 13.3.2. (Row-level Locks) might
> merit its own subsection. It talks about page-level locks as distinct
> from table- and r
Hi,
While reading through the Explicit Locking section of the manual today,
I felt the last paragraph of section 13.3.2. (Row-level Locks) might
merit its own subsection. It talks about page-level locks as distinct
from table- and row-level locks. Then again, it is just one paragraph,
so maybe t
