Message-ID: <4687b406-252f-c0c4-1ccd-2f1f782db252@xs4all.nl>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:11:43 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Add further details to ROW SHARE table level lock modes section
Content-Language: en-US
To: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
References: <202204131800.4kk67cjmeuqh@alvherre.pgsql>
From: Erikjan Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl>
In-Reply-To: <202204131800.4kk67cjmeuqh@alvherre.pgsql>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4687b406-252f-c0c4-1ccd-2f1f782db252%40xs4all.nl>
Precedence: bulk

Op 13-04-2022 om 20:00 schreef Alvaro Herrera:
> On 2022-Apr-04, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> 
>> I propose that it would be useful to explicitly state that `SELECT FOR KEY
>> SHARE` AND `SELECT FOR NO KEY UPDATE` commands also acquire the ROW SHARE
>> table level lock on target table(s). That is:
>> ```
>> Conflicts with the EXCLUSIVE and ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock modes.
>>
>> The SELECT FOR UPDATE, SELECT FOR NO KEY UPDATE,  SELECT FOR SHARE, and
>> SELECT FOR KEY SHARE commands acquire a lock of this mode on the target
>> table(s) (in addition to ACCESS SHARE locks on any other tables that are
>> referenced but not selected FOR UPDATE/FOR SHARE).
>> ```
> 
> I agree we need an update here.  But the original wording seems a bit
> off; I think we should say SELECT is a command, and that the FOR bits
> are options thereof.  Maybe something like this:
> 
>          <para>
>           The <command>SELECT</command> command acquires a lock of this mode
>           on all tables on which one of the <option>FOR UPDATE</option>,
>           <option>FOR NO KEY UPDATE</option>,
>           <option>FOR SHARE</option>, or
>           <option>FOR KEY SHARE</option> options is specified
>           (in addition to <literal>ACCESS SHARE</literal> locks on any other
>           tables that are referenced without any explicit
>           <option>FOR ...</option> locking option).
>          </para>
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Grammar check: "one of the a,b,c options IS specified" or "one of the
> a,b,c options ARE specified"?


one [...] IS specified