Re: Why is AccessShareLock held until end of transaction?

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> On 11 March 2014 03:41, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)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*