Florian Wunderlich <fwunderlich@devbrain.de> writes:
> Of course, never thought of that. But why does the lock (AccessShareLock
> from what I see) keep UPDATE (that acquires a RowExclusiveLock from what
> I see) from running?
It shouldn't do that. Can you provide an example?
> I'd really like to have persistent insensitive cursors,
Seems a lot easier to just select the data you want into a temp table.
You *cannot* expect deleted data in a table to hang around for you after
you close your transaction --- there is nothing to protect it from being
VACUUMed, for example.
regards, tom lane
