On Fri, 2002-03-15 at 18:23, Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <nconway@klamath.dyndns.org> writes:
> > AFAIK, current Postgres behavior when processing SELECT queries is like
> > this:
> > (1) for each tuple in the result set, try to get an
> > AccessShareLock on it
>
> Uh, no. There are no per-tuple locks, other than SELECT FOR UPDATE
> which doesn't affect SELECT at all. AccessShareLock is taken on the
> entire table, mainly as a means of ensuring the table doesn't disappear
> from under us.
Ah, that makes sense. My mistake -- thanks for the info.
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway@rogers.com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC