| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Spelling of lock names |
| Date: | 2002-03-22 18:35:50 |
| Message-ID: | 2736.1016822150@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> The current spelling corresponds to the internal identifier names, but not
> to any user-level command syntax, so I don't consider it appropriate for
> user-level documentation.
I agree that the internal coding should not dictate what the
documentation uses, but I'm not sure that I see the improvement from
ShareRowExclusiveLock
to
share-row-exclusive lock
when the thing the user might actually write is
LOCK foo IN SHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE MODE
It'd seem that
SHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE lock
(perhaps font-ifying what I've upcased here) would be the closest thing
to the user-visible syntax.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rich Morin | 2002-03-27 23:53:59 | Re: pagination in the PostgreSQL 7.2 Programmer's Guide |
| Previous Message | Vince Vielhaber | 2002-03-22 18:26:42 | Re: Stalled post to pgsql-docs |