On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 10:03:08AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > If we were to use the existing PostgreSQL naming convention, I think > I'd probably argue that the nearest parallel to this level is > ShareUpdateExclusive: a self-exclusive lock level that permits > ordinary table access to continue while blocking exclusive locks, used > for an in-flight maintenance operation. But that's arguable, of > course.
ShareUpdateExclusive is a term that's been used for some time now and relates to knowledge that's quite spread in the tree, so it feels like a natural fit for the use-case described on this thread as we'd want a self-conflicting lock. share-exclusive did not sound that bad to me, TBH, quite the contrary, when applied to buffer locking for aio. "intent" is also a word I've bumped quite a lot into while looking at some naming convention, but this is more related to the fact that a lock is going to be taken, which we don't really have. So that feels off. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
