On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Alex Pilosov wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > when done, but it will deadlock if SELECT does not release that lock.
> >
> > That's annoying but I see no way around it, if we are to allow
> > concurrent transactions to do schema modifications of tables that other
> > transactions are using.
>
> I might be in above my head, but maybe this is time for yet another type
> of lock? "Do-not-modify-this-table-under-me" lock, which shall persist
> until transaction commits, and will conflict only with alter table
> lock/AccessExclusiveLock?
I just realised that I _am_ in above my head, and the above makes no
sense, and is identical to holding AccessShareLock.
Sorry ;)
-alex
