doc: Clarify use of ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock in various sections

Some sections of the documentation used "exclusive lock" to describe
that an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock is taken during a given operation.  This
can be confusing to the reader as ACCESS SHARE is allowed with an
EXCLUSIVE lock is used, but that would not be the case with what is
described on those parts of the documentation.

Author: Greg Rychlewski
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKemG7VptD=7fNWckFMsMVZL_zzvgDO6v2yVmQ+ZiBfc_06kCQ@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 9.6

Author: michaelpq

doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml

@@ -2630,7 +2630,8 @@ SELECT * FROM information WHERE group_id = 2 FOR UPDATE;
    definer function.)  Also, heavy concurrent use of row share locks on the
    referenced table could pose a performance problem, especially if updates
    of it are frequent.  Another solution, practical if updates of the
-   referenced table are infrequent, is to take an exclusive lock on the
+   referenced table are infrequent, is to take an
+   <literal>ACCESS EXCLUSIVE</literal> lock on the
    referenced table when updating it, so that no concurrent transactions
    could be examining old row values.  Or one could just wait for all
    concurrent transactions to end after committing an update of the

doc/src/sgml/hstore.sgml

@@ -926,7 +926,8 @@ UPDATE tablename SET hstorecol = hstorecol || '';
 <programlisting>
 ALTER TABLE tablename ALTER hstorecol TYPE hstore USING hstorecol || '';
 </programlisting>
-   The <command>ALTER TABLE</command> method requires an exclusive lock on the table,
+   The <command>ALTER TABLE</command> method requires an
+   <literal>ACCESS EXCLUSIVE</literal> lock on the table,
    but does not result in bloating the table with old row versions.
   </para>
 

doc/src/sgml/indexam.sgml

@@ -980,8 +980,10 @@ amparallelrescan (IndexScanDesc scan);
    <literal>RowExclusiveLock</literal> when updating the index (including plain
    <command>VACUUM</command>).  Since these lock types do not conflict, the access
    method is responsible for handling any fine-grained locking it might need.
-   An exclusive lock on the index as a whole will be taken only during index
-   creation, destruction, or <command>REINDEX</command>.
+   An <literal>ACCESS EXCLUSIVE</literal> lock on the index as a whole will be
+   taken only during index creation, destruction, or <command>REINDEX</command>
+   (<literal>SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE</literal> is taken instead with
+   <literal>CONCURRENTLY</literal>).
   </para>
 
   <para>

doc/src/sgml/maintenance.sgml

@@ -128,7 +128,8 @@
     <command>DELETE</command> will continue to function normally, though you
     will not be able to modify the definition of a table with commands such as
     <command>ALTER TABLE</command> while it is being vacuumed.)
-    <command>VACUUM FULL</command> requires exclusive lock on the table it is
+    <command>VACUUM FULL</command> requires an
+    <literal>ACCESS EXCLUSIVE</literal> lock on the table it is
     working on, and therefore cannot be done in parallel with other use
     of the table.  Generally, therefore,
     administrators should strive to use standard <command>VACUUM</command> and
@@ -231,7 +232,8 @@
     or one of the table-rewriting variants of
     <link linkend="sql-altertable"><command>ALTER TABLE</command></link>.
     These commands rewrite an entire new copy of the table and build
-    new indexes for it.  All these options require exclusive lock.  Note that
+    new indexes for it.  All these options require an
+    <literal>ACCESS EXCLUSIVE</literal> lock.  Note that
     they also temporarily use extra disk space approximately equal to the size
     of the table, since the old copies of the table and indexes can't be
     released until the new ones are complete.

doc/src/sgml/mvcc.sgml

@@ -826,7 +826,8 @@ ERROR:  could not serialize access due to read/write dependencies among transact
     tables are not dropped or modified in incompatible ways while the
     command executes.  (For example, <command>TRUNCATE</command> cannot safely be
     executed concurrently with other operations on the same table, so it
-    obtains an exclusive lock on the table to enforce that.)
+    obtains an <literal>ACCESS EXCLUSIVE</literal> lock on the table to
+    enforce that.)
    </para>
 
    <para>

doc/src/sgml/pgrowlocks.sgml

@@ -97,8 +97,8 @@ pgrowlocks(text) returns setof record
   <orderedlist>
    <listitem>
     <para>
-    If the table as a whole is exclusive-locked by someone else,
-    <function>pgrowlocks</function> will be blocked.
+     If an <literal>ACCESS EXCLUSIVE</literal> lock is taken on the table,
+     <function>pgrowlocks</function> will be blocked.
     </para>
    </listitem>
    <listitem>

doc/src/sgml/ref/drop_index.sgml

@@ -45,9 +45,10 @@ DROP INDEX [ CONCURRENTLY ] [ IF EXISTS ] <replaceable class="parameter">name</r
      <para>
       Drop the index without locking out concurrent selects, inserts, updates,
       and deletes on the index's table.  A normal <command>DROP INDEX</command>
-      acquires an exclusive lock on the table, blocking other accesses until the
-      index drop can be completed.  With this option, the command instead
-      waits until conflicting transactions have completed.
+      acquires an <literal>ACCESS EXCLUSIVE</literal> lock on the table,
+      blocking other accesses until the index drop can be completed.  With
+      this option, the command instead waits until conflicting transactions
+      have completed.
      </para>
      <para>
       There are several caveats to be aware of when using this option.

doc/src/sgml/ref/reindex.sgml

@@ -282,14 +282,15 @@ REINDEX [ ( <replaceable class="parameter">option</replaceable> [, ...] ) ] { IN
    <command>REINDEX</command> is similar to a drop and recreate of the index
    in that the index contents are rebuilt from scratch.  However, the locking
    considerations are rather different.  <command>REINDEX</command> locks out writes
-   but not reads of the index's parent table.  It also takes an exclusive lock
-   on the specific index being processed, which will block reads that attempt
-   to use that index.  In contrast, <command>DROP INDEX</command> momentarily takes
-   an exclusive lock on the parent table, blocking both writes and reads.  The
-   subsequent <command>CREATE INDEX</command> locks out writes but not reads; since
-   the index is not there, no read will attempt to use it, meaning that there
-   will be no blocking but reads might be forced into expensive sequential
-   scans.
+   but not reads of the index's parent table.  It also takes an
+   <literal>ACCESS EXCLUSIVE</literal> lock on the specific index being processed,
+   which will block reads that attempt to use that index.  In contrast,
+   <command>DROP INDEX</command> momentarily takes an
+   <literal>ACCESS EXCLUSIVE</literal> lock on the parent table, blocking both
+   writes and reads.  The subsequent <command>CREATE INDEX</command> locks out
+   writes but not reads; since the index is not there, no read will attempt to
+   use it, meaning that there will be no blocking but reads might be forced
+   into expensive sequential scans.
   </para>
 
   <para>

doc/src/sgml/ref/vacuum.sgml

@@ -83,8 +83,8 @@ VACUUM [ FULL ] [ FREEZE ] [ VERBOSE ] [ ANALYZE ] [ <replaceable class="paramet
    specify parallel workers as zero.  <command>VACUUM FULL</command> rewrites
    the entire contents of the table into a new disk file with no extra space,
    allowing unused space to be returned to the operating system.  This form is
-   much slower and requires an exclusive lock on each table while it is being
-   processed.
+   much slower and requires an <literal>ACCESS EXCLUSIVE</literal> lock on
+   each table while it is being processed.
   </para>
 
   <para>