mirrors/postgres
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Fix orthotypographical mistake

Browse Source 
Apparently I lost some of the edits I had done on this page for commit
0ac5ad5134.

Per note from Etsuro Fujita, although I didn't use his patch.

Make some of the wording in the affected section a bit more complete,
too.
This commit is contained in:
Alvaro Herrera 2013-03-12 11:57:22 -03:00
parent 0247d43dd9
commit 1ba0119308
1 changed files with 17 additions and 25 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

42
doc/src/sgml/ref/select.sgml
View File

@ -1200,7 +1200,7 @@ FETCH { FIRST | NEXT } [ <replaceable class="parameter">count</replaceable> ] {
</refsect2>
<refsect2 id="SQL-FOR-UPDATE-SHARE">
<title id="sql-for-update-share-title"><literal>FOR UPDATE</>, <literal>FOR NO KEY UPDATE</>/<literal>FOR SHARE</>/<literal>FOR KEY SHARE</> Clauses</title>
<title id="sql-for-update-share-title">The Locking Clause</title>
<para>
<literal>FOR UPDATE</>, <literal>FOR NO KEY UPDATE</>, <literal>FOR SHARE</>
@ -1210,30 +1210,19 @@ FETCH { FIRST | NEXT } [ <replaceable class="parameter">count</replaceable> ] {
</para>
<para>
The <literal>FOR UPDATE</literal> clause has this form:
<synopsis>
FOR UPDATE [ OF <replaceable class="parameter">table_name</replaceable> [, ...] ] [ NOWAIT ]
</synopsis>
</para>
The locking clause has the general form
<para>
The <literal>FOR NO KEY UPDATE</literal> clause has this form:
<synopsis>
FOR NO KEY UPDATE [ OF <replaceable class="parameter">table_name</replaceable> [, ...] ] [ NOWAIT ]
FOR <replaceable>lock_strength</> [ OF <replaceable class="parameter">table_name</replaceable> [, ...] ] [ NOWAIT ]
</synopsis>
</para>
<para>
The closely related <literal>FOR SHARE</literal> clause has this form:
<synopsis>
FOR SHARE [ OF <replaceable class="parameter">table_name</replaceable> [, ...] ] [ NOWAIT ]
</synopsis>
</para>
where <replaceable>lock_strength</> can be one of
<para>
Similarly, the <literal>FOR KEY SHARE</> clause has this form:
<synopsis>
FOR KEY SHARE [ OF <replaceable class="parameter">table_name</replaceable> [, ...] ] [ NOWAIT ]
UPDATE
NO KEY UPDATE
SHARE
KEY SHARE
</synopsis>
</para>
@ -1245,6 +1234,7 @@ FOR KEY SHARE [ OF <replaceable class="parameter">table_name</replaceable> [, ..
other transactions that attempt <command>UPDATE</command>,
<command>DELETE</command>,
<command>SELECT FOR UPDATE</command>,
<command>SELECT FOR NO KEY UPDATE</command>,
<command>SELECT FOR SHARE</command> or
<command>SELECT FOR KEY SHARE</command>
of these rows will be blocked until the current transaction ends.
@ -1270,15 +1260,17 @@ FOR KEY SHARE [ OF <replaceable class="parameter">table_name</replaceable> [, ..
<literal>FOR NO KEY UPDATE</> behaves similarly, except that the lock
acquired is weaker: this lock will not block
<literal>SELECT FOR KEY SHARE</> commands that attempt to acquire
a lock on the same rows.
a lock on the same rows. This lock mode is also acquired by any
<command>UPDATE</> that does not acquire a <literal>FOR UPDATE</> lock.
</para>
<para>
<literal>FOR SHARE</literal> behaves similarly, except that it
acquires a shared rather than exclusive lock on each retrieved
row. A shared lock blocks other transactions from performing
<command>UPDATE</command>, <command>DELETE</command>, or <command>SELECT
FOR UPDATE</command> on these rows, but it does not prevent them
<command>UPDATE</command>, <command>DELETE</command>, <command>SELECT
FOR UPDATE</command> or <command>SELECT FOR NO KEY UPDATE</>
on these rows, but it does not prevent them
from performing <command>SELECT FOR SHARE</command> or
<command>SELECT FOR KEY SHARE</command>.
</para>
@ -1290,8 +1282,8 @@ FOR KEY SHARE [ OF <replaceable class="parameter">table_name</replaceable> [, ..
not <literal>SELECT FOR NO KEY UPDATE</>. A key-shared
lock blocks other transactions from performing <command>DELETE</command>
or any <command>UPDATE</command> that changes the key values, but not
other <command>UPDATE</>, and neither it does prevent
<command>SELECT FOR UPDATE</>, <command>SELECT FOR SHARE</>, or
other <command>UPDATE</>, and neither does it prevent
<command>SELECT FOR NO KEY UPDATE</>, <command>SELECT FOR SHARE</>, or
<command>SELECT FOR KEY SHARE</>.
</para>
@ -1382,7 +1374,7 @@ UPDATE mytable SET ... WHERE key = 1;
ROLLBACK TO s;
</programlisting>
would fail to preserve the <literal>FOR UPDATE</> lock after the
<command>ROLLBACK</>. This has been fixed in release 9.2.
<command>ROLLBACK TO</>. This has been fixed in release 9.3.
</para>
<caution>