Re: AccessShareLock question

From: Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>
To: Clayton Graf <clayton(dot)graf(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: AccessShareLock question
Date: 2009-12-19 15:34:13
Message-ID: 3073cc9b0912190734t118cabd0va900d9d53cb812c3@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Clayton Graf <clayton(dot)graf(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I get an AccessShareLock in a simple select command and I am not using the
> FOR SHARE clause.

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/explicit-locking.html says:
"""
ACCESS SHARE

Conflicts with the ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock mode only.

The SELECT command acquires a lock of this mode on referenced
tables. In general, any query that only reads a table and does not
modify it will acquire this lock mode.
"""
in other words, everything is ok, AccessShareLock doesn't block
anything but with anyone trying to change the structure of the table
(ALTER, DROP) and with commands TRUNCATE, REINDEX, CLUSTER, and VACUUM
FULL, and every select take it

--
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas
Guayaquil - Ecuador
Cel. +59387171157

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Clayton Graf 2009-12-19 15:58:12 Re: AccessShareLock question
Previous Message John DeSoi 2009-12-19 15:32:02 Re: Extended Query, flush or sync ?