Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C33F9475450
	for <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:36:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g2MIZoS02739;
	Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:35:50 -0500 (EST)
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Spelling of lock names 
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0203221250220.787-100000@peter.localdomain> 
References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0203221250220.787-100000@peter.localdomain>
Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
	message dated "Fri, 22 Mar 2002 12:55:25 -0500"
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:35:50 -0500
Message-ID: <2736.1016822150@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Archive-Number: 200203/42
X-Sequence-Number: 1323

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