Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 09:31:01 +0100
From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: blessy456bthomas@gmail.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Regarding experiencing
Message-ID: <202502110831.dgzemrqpnp4y@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <173926144817.707.5435160037273260016@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202502110831.dgzemrqpnp4y%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

Hello

On 2025-Feb-11, PG Doc comments form wrote:

> ISSUE : According to the above paragraph , locks should either be shared or
> exclusive. But when I tried assigning a shared lock and exclusive lock
> without unlock of the shared lock , it doesn't show a conflict. I think this
> may contradict what is said in above paragraph of documentation. Can you
> enlighten me more on this , regarding the understanding if my assumption is
> wrong.

Your understanding is correct -- there should be a conflict.  The lack
of one suggests that you're using the lock interfaces incorrectly.
Please show the exact commands you're running.  Maybe there's something
about the documentation text that needs to be made clearer.

> I could have attached snaps of the same but I don't find an
> attachment option.

True.  You can reply to this email with attachments.  However, I would
instead suggest to copy and paste text from terminal window(s), rather
than screenshots.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/