RE: Required locks for ANALYZE

Hi,
I’m terribly sorry for the delay of response.

>This does not really seem like an improvement. The second formulation is
>pedantically correct, but also unintelligible.
>
> Maybe we could make it say "run in parallel with non-DDL activity" ?

I completely agree with you, therefore, I amended it as follows.
----
ANALYZE requires only a read lock on the target table, so it can run in
parallel with non-DDL activity on the table.
----

Would it be possible to proceed further?

Best regards

From: Tom Lane
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 11:12 PM
To: zyake(dot)mk4(at)gmail(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Required locks for ANALYZE

PG Doc comments form <noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> Therefore, in my opinion, the below paragraph should be amended as below.

> * Before
> -----
> ANALYZE requires only a read lock on the target table, so it can run in
> parallel with other activity on the table.
> -----

> * After
> -----
> ANALYZE requires only a SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE lock on the target table, so
> it can run in parallel with queries requiring ACCESS SHARE/ROW SHARE/ROW
> EXCLUSIVE locks such as SELECT, UPDATE, DELETE, INSERT on the table.
> -----

This does not really seem like an improvement. The second formulation is
pedantically correct, but also unintelligible.

Maybe we could make it say "run in parallel with non-DDL activity" ?

regards, tom lane