On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 17:50 -0300, Alexsander Rosa wrote: > It's weird to *require* a COMMIT on a simple SELECT,
That's not strange. You can't even access Postgres (at any way) without a transaction. So you always have to start and end the transaction. > but the CommitRetaining trick seemed to work. The system table > "pg_stat_activity" still shows the "<IDLE> in transaction" pending That's because a new transaction is started immediately by CommitRetaining. > query but the lock is no more -- at least I could execute a CREATE > TABLE normally. What you should really do is to set the right transaction isolation level. Joost -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
