MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 08:32:15 +0100
From: Silvan Jegen <me@sillymon.ch>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Move description of general lock behaviour out of the "13.3.1.
 Table-level Locks section"
In-Reply-To: <20200312203420.GA2309@momjian.us>
References: <158074944048.1095.4309647363871637715@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <20200312203420.GA2309@momjian.us>
Message-ID: <c77865390429dc6eb56e5b04610c9279@sillymon.ch>
Precedence: bulk

Hi

On 2020-03-12 21:34, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Feb  3, 2020 at 05:04:00PM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:
>> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>> 
>> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/explicit-locking.html
>> Description:
>> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> The "13.3.1. Table-level Locks" subsection mentions the following: 
>> "Once
>> acquired, a lock is normally held till end of transaction." (maybe we 
>> should
>> also squeeze a "...till the end of a transaction" in there) According 
>> to a
> 
> Sorry for the delay in replying.  Yes, this wording needs improvement,

No problem!


> which I have done in the attached patch.
> 
>> helpful stranger on IRC, this behavior is also true for row-level 
>> locks.
>> 
>> Since this sentence also applies to the row-level locks described in 
>> the
>> following subsection 13.3.2 I think it would be more fitting to move 
>> the
>> paragraph containing this sentence to the introduction of the topic in
>> section "13.3. Explicit Locking". This would then read something like:
> 
> Uh, we can't move that paragraph up because Page-Level Locks and
> Advisory Locks aren't always released on transaction end or rollback.

Ah, I didn't take that into account.


> What I did do was to mention that row-level locks are released in a
> similar way to table-level locks.
> 
> Patch attached.

The patch looks good to me, thanks!


Cheers,

Silvan