On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 14:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> Fixed. See attached.
>
> I started reading this but by chunk seven I only agree with a couple of
> these changes. None of them seem hugely important changes.
>
> I'd suggest you make a pass of copy editing that doesn't seek to alter
> the meanings or add information, so we can agree without discussing each
> proposed change in detail. Definitely don't remove information.
I've actually removed very little. The current text repeats some
information or splits up related facts across different paragraphs.
> It's not impossible to believe that temp tables could be written in the
> future, so I disagree with the comments there.
The text I wrote does not say that temp tables could not be written in
the future. It simply says why they cannot be written now.
> We could also allow SELECT ... FOR SHARE during Hot Standby, simply by
> making it same as normal SELECT, without any ill effects.
True.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company