Hi,
I’m terribly sorry for the delay of response.
>This does not really seem like an improvement. The second formulation is
>pedantically correct, but also unintelligible.
>
> Maybe we could make it say "run in parallel with non-DDL activity" ?
I completely agree with you, therefore, I amended it as follows.
----
ANALYZE requires only a read lock on the target table, so it can run in
parallel with non-DDL activity on the table.
----
Would it be possible to proceed further?
Best regards
From: Tom Lane
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 11:12 PM
To: zyake....@gmail.com
Cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Required locks for ANALYZE
PG Doc comments form <nore...@postgresql.org> writes:
> Therefore, in my opinion, the below paragraph should be amended as below.
> * Before
> -----
> ANALYZE requires only a read lock on the target table, so it can run in
> parallel with other activity on the table.
> -----
> * After
> -----
> ANALYZE requires only a SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE lock on the target table, so
> it can run in parallel with queries requiring ACCESS SHARE/ROW SHARE/ROW
> EXCLUSIVE locks such as SELECT, UPDATE, DELETE, INSERT on the table.
> -----
This does not really seem like an improvement. The second formulation is
pedantically correct, but also unintelligible.
Maybe we could make it say "run in parallel with non-DDL activity" ?
regards, tom lane
