Re: Add further details to ROW SHARE table level lock modes section

Op 13-04-2022 om 20:00 schreef Alvaro Herrera:
> On 2022-Apr-04, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> 
>> I propose that it would be useful to explicitly state that `SELECT FOR KEY
>> SHARE` AND `SELECT FOR NO KEY UPDATE` commands also acquire the ROW SHARE
>> table level lock on target table(s). That is:
>> ```
>> Conflicts with the EXCLUSIVE and ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock modes.
>>
>> The SELECT FOR UPDATE, SELECT FOR NO KEY UPDATE,  SELECT FOR SHARE, and
>> SELECT FOR KEY SHARE commands acquire a lock of this mode on the target
>> table(s) (in addition to ACCESS SHARE locks on any other tables that are
>> referenced but not selected FOR UPDATE/FOR SHARE).
>> ```
> 
> I agree we need an update here.  But the original wording seems a bit
> off; I think we should say SELECT is a command, and that the FOR bits
> are options thereof.  Maybe something like this:
> 
>          <para>
>           The <command>SELECT</command> command acquires a lock of this mode
>           on all tables on which one of the <option>FOR UPDATE</option>,
>           <option>FOR NO KEY UPDATE</option>,
>           <option>FOR SHARE</option>, or
>           <option>FOR KEY SHARE</option> options is specified
>           (in addition to <literal>ACCESS SHARE</literal> locks on any other
>           tables that are referenced without any explicit
>           <option>FOR ...</option> locking option).
>          </para>
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Grammar check: "one of the a,b,c options IS specified" or "one of the
> a,b,c options ARE specified"?


one [...] IS specified