> That sentence is a suggestion of an action for the reader to take, conditionally upon verifying that such things are no longer necessary.
I see, that makes sense now, I was parsing the sentence differently. Perhaps for clarity those explicit locks could be mentioned in brackets so the sentence reads:
> "Eliminate explicit locks (SELECT FOR UPDATE and SELECT FOR SHARE) where no longer needed due to the protections automatically provided by Serializable transactions."
That way, the intent of "where no longer needed" being a conditional suggestion is closely connected to the "eliminate explicit locks" instruction. Essentially without the bracketed part it would read:
> "Eliminate explicit locks...where no longer needed..."
I believe adding brackets would help but in any case, it's not a big deal and I extend my thanks to all the people working on the Postgres docs (as a new user adopting Postgres for my next take-over-the-world project, the comprehensive docs are pure gold!).
Many thanks,
Eric Mutta.
PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
> The following sentence:
>> Eliminate explicit locks, SELECT FOR UPDATE, and SELECT FOR SHARE where no
> longer needed due...
> Uses the word "where" when it should probably use the word "are" and thus
> read:
> Eliminate explicit locks, SELECT FOR UPDATE, and SELECT FOR SHARE are no
> longer needed due...
Hmm, I don't think so. That sentence is a suggestion of an action
for the reader to take, conditionally upon verifying that such things
are no longer necessary. Your wording would turn it into an assertion
that no such things are necessary anywhere. That seems (a) probably
wrong and (b) not grammatically consistent with the other entries in
that bullet list.
regards, tom lane