On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 04:46:56PM +0900, Aramaki Zyake wrote:
> 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 s
ail.com
Cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Required locks for ANALYZE
PG Doc comments form 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
> para
PG Doc comments form 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 S
