Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> The current spelling corresponds to the internal identifier names, but not
> to any user-level command syntax, so I don't consider it appropriate for
> user-level documentation.
I agree that the internal coding should not dictate what the
documentation uses, but I'm not sure that I see the improvement from
ShareRowExclusiveLock
to
share-row-exclusive lock
when the thing the user might actually write is
LOCK foo IN SHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE MODE
It'd seem that
SHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE lock
(perhaps font-ifying what I've upcased here) would be the closest thing
to the user-visible syntax.
regards, tom lane