Thanks for pointing that out. I've attached a new patch with several other updates where I felt confident the docs were referring to an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 8:47 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 10:33:46AM -0400, Greg Rychlewski wrote: > > While reading the documentation for DROP INDEX[1], I noticed the lock was > > described colloquially as an "exclusive" lock, which made me pause for a > > second because it's the same name as the EXCLUSIVE table lock. > > > > The attached patch explicitly states that an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock is > > acquired. > > Indeed, this could be read as ACCESS SHARE being allowed, but that's > never the case for any of the index code paths, except if CONCURRENTLY > is involved. It is not the only place in the docs where we could do > more clarification. For instance, reindex.sgml mentions twice an > exclusive lock but that should be an access exclusive lock. To be > exact, I can spot 27 places under doc/ that could be improved. Such > changes depend on the surrounding context, of course. > -- > Michael >
v2-docs-access-exclusive-lock.patch
Description: Binary data
