| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: documentation about explicit locking |
| Date: | 2018-07-06 02:00:21 |
| Message-ID: | 4f94dddd-47aa-62a9-a32f-626ae99be8b8@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018/07/05 23:02, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 3:09 AM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> I wonder why we mention on the following page that CREATE COLLATION
>> requires SHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE lock
>>
>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/explicit-locking.html
>>
>> I know that's the lock taken on the pg_collation catalog, but do we need
>> to mention locks taken by a DDL command on the catalogs it affects? All
>> other commands mentioned on the page require to specify the table name
>> that the lock will be taken on.
>
> Yes, that looks odd.
OK, here is a patch.
I see that it was one of Peter E's commits that added that, so cc'd him.
Thanks,
Amit
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| doc-locking.patch | text/plain | 606 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-07-06 02:30:46 | Re: hot_standby_feedback vs excludeVacuum and snapshots |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2018-07-06 01:52:27 | Re: Global shared meta cache |