Re: DROP INDEX docs - explicit lock naming

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Greg Rychlewski <greg(dot)rychlewski(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: DROP INDEX docs - explicit lock naming
Date: 2021-04-01 06:32:27
Message-ID: YGVo+weN3sxatGsm@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2021-04-01 06:46:06 Re: Issue with point_ops and NaN
Previous Message Jaime Casanova 2021-04-01 06:25:45 Re: Crash in BRIN minmax-multi indexes