Re: Why is AccessShareLock held until end of transaction?

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> On 11 March 2014 17:29, Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > 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?
>
> Please outline your alternate proposal so we can judge the comparative
> efficiency.
>
>
>
I dont have an alternate proposal yet. I was just wondering if per step
transactions could lead to a drop in performance.

If that is the best way to go, I am all for it.

Regards,

Atri

--
Regards,

Atri
*l'apprenant*