Re: DROP INDEX docs - explicit lock naming

Thanks! I apologize, I added a commitfest entry for this and failed to add
it to my message: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/33/3053/.

This is my first time submitting a patch and I'm not sure if it needs to be
deleted now or if you are supposed to add yourself as a committer.

On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 2:32 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:29:17PM -0400, Greg Rychlewski wrote:
> > Thanks for pointing that out. I've attached a new patch with several
> other
> > updates where I felt confident the docs were referring to an ACCESS
> > EXCLUSIVE lock.
>
> Thanks, applied! I have reviewed the whole and there is one place in
> vacuum.sgml that could switch "exclusive lock" to "SHARE UPDATE
> EXCLUSIVE lock" but I have left that out as it does not bring more
> clarity in the text. The change in indexam.sgml was partially wrong
> as REINDEX CONCURRENTLY does not take an access exclusive lock, and I
> have tweaked a bit the wording of pgrowlocks.sgml.
> --
> Michael
>