Re: [HACKERS] relation ### modified while in use

[Alex Pilosov]

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 realise we have already many lock types, but this seems to be proper
solution to me...

In related vein: Is there a way to see who (at least process id) is
holding locks on tables?