On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 11 March 2014 03:41, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> writes: > >> I am probably missing something obvious, but why does the > >> AccessShareLock remain held on a table after a SELECT statement is > >> complete when in a transaction block? > > > > *Any* lock acquired by user command is held till end of transaction; > > AccessShareLock isn't special. > > > > In general, releasing early would increase the risk of undesirable > > behaviors such as tables changing definition mid-transaction. > > I thought "good question" at first, but the workaround is simple... > just don't use multi-step transactions, submit each request as a > separate transaction. > > > Wouldnt that tend to get inefficient? Regards, Atri -- Regards, Atri *l'apprenant*
