Re: ExclusiveLock without a relation in pg_locks

From: Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>
To: Carlos Oliva <carlos(at)pbsinet(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ExclusiveLock without a relation in pg_locks
Date: 2006-02-23 18:08:51
Message-ID: 20060223180851.GA43438@winnie.fuhr.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 11:08:07AM -0500, Carlos Oliva wrote:
> Thank you very much for your answer. I think that I am seeing those self
> transaction id locks as "ExclusiveLocks"
>
> Would you expect to see an "ExclusiveLock" with a query of type Select (not
> Select Update or Update or Insert)?

Not in general, unless perhaps the select called a function that
acquired such a lock. The Concurrency Control chapter in the
documentation has a section on lock types and the commands that
acquire them:

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/explicit-locking.html

Are you just curious or are you seeing such a situation?

--
Michael Fuhr

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message A. Kretschmer 2006-02-23 18:15:18 Re: Limitations : Number of ...
Previous Message Jon Cruz 2006-02-23 18:00:01 Limitations : Number of ...