Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Spelling of lock names

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 (view raw or flat)
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

In response to

pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Rich MorinDate: 2002-03-27 23:53:59
Subject: Re: pagination in the PostgreSQL 7.2 Programmer's Guide
Previous:From: Vince VielhaberDate: 2002-03-22 18:26:42
Subject: Re: Stalled post to pgsql-docs

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group