"ipig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In your example, it seems that process B is the first such waiter( the > request of B conflicts AccessShareLock).
No. Better go study http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/explicit-locking.html#LOCKING-TABLES After looking at the example again, consider the further assumption that C already has AccessShareLock (which is certainly a valid configuration). Then A *must* queue between C and D; there is no other valid order to grant the requests in. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
