Re: DROP INDEX docs - explicit lock naming

Thanks for pointing that out. I've attached a new patch with several other
updates where I felt confident the docs were referring to an ACCESS
EXCLUSIVE lock.

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 8:47 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 10:33:46AM -0400, Greg Rychlewski wrote:
> > While reading the documentation for DROP INDEX[1], I noticed the lock was
> > described colloquially as an "exclusive" lock, which made me pause for a
> > second because it's the same name as the EXCLUSIVE table lock.
> >
> > The attached patch explicitly states that an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock is
> > acquired.
>
> Indeed, this could be read as ACCESS SHARE being allowed, but that's
> never the case for any of the index code paths, except if CONCURRENTLY
> is involved.  It is not the only place in the docs where we could do
> more clarification.  For instance, reindex.sgml mentions twice an
> exclusive lock but that should be an access exclusive lock.  To be
> exact, I can spot 27 places under doc/ that could be improved.  Such
> changes depend on the surrounding context, of course.
> --
> Michael
>