> On 28 Mar 2023, at 22:45, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > PG Doc comments form <nore...@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 "from", >> referencing the second line of code and its FROM clause in the snippet. > > No, I think "form" is exactly what was meant.
Agreed, I think that was the indended spelling. > Maybe we should have said "second query" or something like that, though. Reading this section I agree that the mix of ok/danger in the same example can be tad misleading though. Something like the attached is what I would prefer as a reader. -- Daniel Gustafsson
adv_lock_limit.diff
Description: Binary data
