Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Sorry for not paying attention sooner. After studying it for awhile,
>> I think the change is probably all right but your proposed comment is
>> entirely inadequate.
> If you don't like that version, can you suggest something you would like better?
Perhaps like this:
* We assume the entry requires exclusive lock on each TABLE or TABLE DATA * item listed among its dependencies.
Originallyall of these would have * been TABLE items, but repoint_table_dependencies would have repointed * them
tothe TABLE DATA items if those are present (which they might not * be, eg in a schema-only dump). Note that all of
theentries we are * processing here are POST_DATA; otherwise there might be a significant * difference between a
dependencyon a table and a dependency on its * data, so that closer analysis would be needed here.
regards, tom lane