Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d1ePj-0002he-Su for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 19:40:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d1ePj-0002rE-Ay for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 19:40:19 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d1ePL-00027v-Nm for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 19:39:55 +0000 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d1ePH-0002cM-4X for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 19:39:54 +0000 Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC1921EEE; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:39:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:39:49 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=DDeWV4kkBwljPpSdVnmEeRyiuh+Fb2/MekXoNutxuC8=; b=WlAR+ULd grLDGoNIfMDa4zQS8ySVteS4OfsE2T8nwFrQOJhvAo7FfGZ18dQQIbwieuX3ntzA dWoeRXT0PV1v3Uytmom7JlYXVZQqtgaFkTy6Wh073WO4WCMqatLN4MGecTgNAGqO RLw7Qx10sRU0cSPR2RWYhLqQ9wde6ZMGFnxwMmgXvy/GAM0X0Q7cCNXDfiTlPaU4 kS0z5vozqpH3oWqDn+4obeqoeIllEAu4uNHHppG4GwcLClAIUw9w+6OkfRAY5yew J+ZFyxp5Po7mmQOrzQaSBztCos0WVKj6IdMV66Ud0x0bY0AHmX52vROh1OBUHOEp eJ4r5WKFk+DecA== X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: 8D22xbJn93rekOPcISRbdrVhyYQs0+/+EY+LE2iEdmTP 1492803589 Received: from april.local (c-73-13-66-39.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [73.13.66.39]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 40C91240A5; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:39:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Missing lock conflict for ROW SHARE To: diemersebastien@yahoo.fr, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org References: <20170412100015.25934.47518@wrigleys.postgresql.org> From: Peter Eisentraut Organization: 2ndQuadrant Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:39:48 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170412100015.25934.47518@wrigleys.postgresql.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-docs Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org On 4/12/17 06:00, diemersebastien@yahoo.fr wrote: > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/explicit-locking.html > Description: > > In my experience ROW SHARE conflicts with ROW EXCLUSIVE and this is not > mentioned in the documentation. Am I missing something ? This is not correct. See the source for how the lock conflicts are defined: -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs