| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | zyake(dot)mk4(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Cc: | pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Required locks for ANALYZE |
| Date: | 2019-08-20 14:12:24 |
| Message-ID: | 6129.1566310344@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2019-08-20 16:03:09 | Re: readability changes to postgres.sgml |
| Previous Message | PG Doc comments form | 2019-08-20 12:03:26 | Server Configuration: Replication documentation |