From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Inconsistencies in documentation of row-level locking |
Date: | 2014-10-21 01:26:05 |
Message-ID: | 5445B62D.2020709@BlueTreble.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/10/14, 8:31 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Currently all the row-level lock modes are described in the page for
> SELECT query:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/explicit-locking.html#LOCKING-ROWS
> However, after browsing the documentation, I noticed in the page
> describing all the explicit locks of the system that there is a
> portion dedicated to row-level locks and this section is not
> mentioning at all FOR KEY SHARE and FOR NO KEY UPDATE. It seems that
> this is something rather misleading for the user:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/explicit-locking.html#LOCKING-ROWS
>
> Attached is a patch that refactors the whole and improves the documentation:
> - Addition of a table showing the conflicts between each lock
> - Moved description of each row-level lock mode to the explicit locking page
> - Addition of a link in SELECT portion to redirect the user to the
> explicit locking page
Did this get committed? Should probably add it to the commitfest if not...
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Noah Misch | 2014-10-21 03:46:28 | Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT |
Previous Message | David G Johnston | 2014-10-21 01:18:38 | Re: Questions on domain on composite / casts ignoring domains |