Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE29237C799;
	Mon,  6 Oct 2008 04:59:47 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 94175-03; Mon,  6 Oct 2008 04:59:41 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from svr2.hagander.net (svr2.hagander.net [88.198.128.226])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62F6937C406;
	Mon,  6 Oct 2008 04:59:41 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from dynamic.hagander.net ([127.0.0.1]) (encrypted and
	authenticated) by svr2.hagander.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id
	95639DCCBCB; Mon,  6 Oct 2008 09:59:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mha-laptop.hagander.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C70EE1243BB;
	Mon,  6 Oct 2008 09:59:35 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <48E9C567.408@hagander.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:59:35 +0200
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20080925)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com>
CC: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #4410: Indexes not seen right away
References: <7b98830a9fbba455fa905b3ca0ef8231@biglumber.com>
In-Reply-To: <7b98830a9fbba455fa905b3ca0ef8231@biglumber.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200810/16
X-Sequence-Number: 21491

Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> 
>>>> Does it have pg_index.indcheckxmin = true?  If so, see README.HOT.
>>> Yes, that was probably it. Is this worth noting in the documentation somewhere
>>> (other than the technical bowels of HOT)? Perhaps in the CREATE INDEX
>>> docs?
> ...
>> I have attached the scripts I used for testing.  I don't think it is
>> worth documenting this until we have 8.4 released and people start using
>> it.
> 
> I'm not following this, Bruce. HOT came out in 8.3, not 8.4, so why would we
> wait on documenting the problem?
> 
>> I believe a mention in the manual would require quite complex wording.
> 
> Seems something would be better than nothing. Example:
> 
> "Note: In versions 8.3 and higher, indexes may not be immediately visible
> due to the way HOT chains work. For more information, please see
> <link to README.HOT>."

I think putting links in the user documentation directly to development
README files that require you to look in the source code is a bad thing...


> It might be nice to upgrade README.HOT to a real documentation page
> as well.

If we want the full explanation there, that's how it should be done :-)

//Magnus