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.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 8:47 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 10:33:46AM -0400, Greg Rychlewski wrote: > While reading the documentation for DROP INDEX[1], I noticed the lock was > described colloquially as an "exclusive" lock, which made me pause for a > second because it's the same name as the EXCLUSIVE table lock. > > The attached patch explicitly states that an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock is > acquired.
Indeed, this could be read as ACCESS SHARE being allowed, but that's never the case for any of the index code paths, except if CONCURRENTLY is involved. It is not the only place in the docs where we could do more clarification. For instance, reindex.sgml mentions twice an exclusive lock but that should be an access exclusive lock. To be exact, I can spot 27 places under doc/ that could be improved. Such changes depend on the surrounding context, of course. -- Michael
