On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 11:21:41PM +0100, Florin Irion wrote:
> So, I made the link to ACCESS SHARE, pointing to section 13.3.1. "Table-Level
> Locks" , was this what you had in mind?
>
> V2 attached.
LGTM. I've marked the commitfest entry as ready-for-committer.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon We
On 15/03/22 16:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> This might be a bit excessive to have in the main text. What about
>> adding a footnote to point out the exact lock level that is meant, with
>> a link to the server doc page that explains each lock level?
>
> I dunno how well wil
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> This might be a bit excessive to have in the main text. What about
> adding a footnote to point out the exact lock level that is meant, with
> a link to the server doc page that explains each lock level?
I dunno how well will render in man-page format.
How about just in
On 2022-Mar-15, Florin Irion wrote:
> In the `pg_dump` documentation we talk about "shared locks", but IIUC,
> we actually take `AccessShareLock`s. This might be misunderstood with
> the `ShareLock`.
This might be a bit excessive to have in the main text. What about
adding a footnote to point o
Hi,
In the `pg_dump` documentation we talk about "shared locks", but IIUC, we
actually take `AccessShareLock`s.
This might be misunderstood with the `ShareLock`.
There are 5 occurrences. 4 in `--jobs=njobs` and 1 in
`--lock-wait-timeout=timeout` sections.
Cheers,
Florin IrionFrom 63adb1d3
