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 |
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 |