Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >> I forgot to mention that I'd like to implement a cross
> >> transaction insensitive(and read-only) cursors which
> >> any proper dbms seems to have the functionality.
>
> > That is a good idea, especially read-only, that will not require any
> > locks.
>
> If it's not holding any locks, I can guarantee you it's not insensitive.
> Consider VACUUM, or even DROP TABLE.
It's already possible to keep a lock accross transactions.
So it would keep an AccessShareLock across transactions.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue