From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Spelling of lock names
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:35:50 -0500
Message-ID: <2736.1016822150@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0203221250220.787-100000@peter.localdomain>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0203221250220.787-100000@peter.localdomain>
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> The current spelling corresponds to the internal identifier names, but not
> to any user-level command syntax, so I don't consider it appropriate for
> user-level documentation.
I agree that the internal coding should not dictate what the
documentation uses, but I'm not sure that I see the improvement from
ShareRowExclusiveLock
to
share-row-exclusive lock
when the thing the user might actually write is
LOCK foo IN SHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE MODE
It'd seem that
SHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE lock
(perhaps font-ifying what I've upcased here) would be the closest thing
to the user-visible syntax.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, peter_e@gmx.net
Subject: Re: Spelling of lock names
In-Reply-To: <2736.1016822150@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox