On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 3:15 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 8 April 2016 at 17:49, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> With the patch, you can - if you wish - substitute >> some other number for the one the planner comes up with. > > > I saw you're using AccessExclusiveLock, the reason being it affects > SELECTs. > > That is supposed to apply when things might change the answer from a > SELECT, whereas this affects only the default for a plan. > > By this theory, shouldn't any other parameter like n_distinct_inherited which just effects the plan required lower lock level? With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
