Re: Minor typo in 13.3.5. Advisory Locks

From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: zacharymschultz(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Minor typo in 13.3.5. Advisory Locks
Date: 2023-03-31 08:25:24
Message-ID: 76AEBCC7-5C7C-4A30-B3C3-8FAB1883C789@yesql.se
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs

> On 28 Mar 2023, at 22:45, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> PG Doc comments form <noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/explicit-locking.html
>
>> After the code snippet in the 6th paragraph of 13.3.5. Advisory Locks
>> (https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/explicit-locking.html#ADVISORY-LOCKS)
>> I believe there is a mistake in this sentence (I've surrounded it with
>> asterisks):
>
>> "In the above queries, the second *form* is dangerous because the
>> LIMIT...".
>
>> I believe that "form" in the above sentence is actually meant to be "from",
>> referencing the second line of code and its FROM clause in the snippet.
>
> No, I think "form" is exactly what was meant.

Agreed, I think that was the indended spelling.

> Maybe we should have said "second query" or something like that, though.

Reading this section I agree that the mix of ok/danger in the same example can
be tad misleading though. Something like the attached is what I would prefer
as a reader.

--
Daniel Gustafsson

Attachment Content-Type Size
adv_lock_limit.diff application/octet-stream 1.7 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2023-03-31 12:35:55 Re: Minor typo in 13.3.5. Advisory Locks
Previous Message PG Doc comments form 2023-03-30 21:23:16 Cannot update the generation expression for a generated column / make the limitation explicit