Re: database-level lockdown

It's not necessary to commit at all costs, it can fail, just not due to
serialization..

And the transaction can be something as simple as updating a field or
inserting a record (with foreign keys which is one the serialization
checks).

On Sáb, Jul 4, 2015 at 7:23 , Adrian Klaver
<adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> wrote:
> On 07/04/2015 10:49 AM, Filipe Pina wrote:
>> Thanks for the suggestion. I read that some people do use that
>> strategy
>> for maintenance sometimes but it's no feasible in this scenario.
>>
>> I would have to disallow new connections AND kill all existing
>> connections (as there would be an existing connection pool), but this
>> won't have the same impact as using LOCKs..
>>
>> Terminating all sessions will break every other transaction (except
>> for
>> the one doing it). Locking database will put all the other on hold.
>> As we're talking about quick/instant operations on hold will have
>> impact
>> on performance but won't cause anything to abort..
>>
>> I really can't find any other solution for what I need (in short:
>> make
>> sure no transactions are left out due to serialization failures)
>
> Which would seem to indicate you have painted yourself into a corner.
> The idea of locking an entire database to get one transaction to
> commit seems a little extreme to me.
>
> What is this transaction trying to do and why is it necessary that it
> commit at all costs?
>
>>
>>
>> On 03/07/2015, at 19:00, Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com
>> <mailto:melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>>
>
>
> --
> Adrian Klaver
> adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com