From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: zacharymschultz@gmail.com
cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Minor typo in 13.3.5. Advisory Locks
In-reply-to: <168001423502.628.12487124747594890228@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
References: <168001423502.628.12487124747594890228@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
Comments: In-reply-to PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>
	message dated "Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:37:15 -0000"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3663047.1680036353.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 16:45:53 -0400
Message-ID: <3663048.1680036353@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3663048.1680036353%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/explicit-locking.html

> After the code snippet in the 6th paragraph of 13.3.5. Advisory Locks
> (https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/explicit-locking.html#ADVISORY-=
LOCKS)
> I believe there is a mistake in this sentence (I've surrounded it with
> asterisks): =


> "In the above queries, the second *form* is dangerous because the
> LIMIT...".

> I believe that "form" in the above sentence is actually meant to be "fro=
m",
> referencing the second line of code and its FROM clause in the snippet.

No, I think "form" is exactly what was meant.  Maybe we should have
said "second query" or something like that, though.

			regards, tom lane