Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: DROP INDEX docs - explicit lock naming - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Greg Rychlewski
Subject Re: DROP INDEX docs - explicit lock naming
Date
Msg-id CAKemG7UxWa9nV=SXAmAYgRLzLMma1rbCEzGHXEAMK1OLJHDDcQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: DROP INDEX docs - explicit lock naming  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: DROP INDEX docs - explicit lock naming  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view
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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: Failed assertion on standby while shutdown
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Replication slot stats misgivings