Re: DROP INDEX docs - explicit lock naming
| От | Greg Rychlewski |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: DROP INDEX docs - explicit lock naming |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAKemG7UxWa9nV=SXAmAYgRLzLMma1rbCEzGHXEAMK1OLJHDDcQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: DROP INDEX docs - explicit lock naming (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
| Ответы |
Re: DROP INDEX docs - explicit lock naming
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
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@paquier.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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: