From: | "Karl O(dot) Pinc" <kop(at)meme(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Serializable isolation -- are predicate locks still held across all databases? |
Date: | 2017-05-19 11:56:46 |
Message-ID: | 20170519065646.7ca479ac@slate.meme.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, 19 May 2017 01:52:00 -0500
"Karl O. Pinc" <kop(at)meme(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2017 12:04:42 -0500
> Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Karl O. Pinc <kop(at)meme(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > > ... Does PG
> > > now pay attention to database in it's SSI implementation?
> >
> > Well, it pays attention as far as the scope of each lock, but there
> > is only one variable to track how far back the oldest transaction ID
> > for a running serializable transaction goes, which is used in
> > cleanup of old locks.
> > ... It's the
> > first time I've heard of someone with this particular issue, so at
> > this point I'm inclined to recommend the workaround of using a
> > separate cluster
I think if I was to make an argument for doing something it would
be based on reliability -- how many users can you give their
own database before somebody leaves an open transaction hanging?
Karl <kop(at)meme(dot)com>
Free Software: "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | bb ddd | 2017-05-19 13:30:18 | Keeping sources of views, and tracking invalid objects (views) similar to oracle |
Previous Message | Karsten Hilbert | 2017-05-19 08:34:34 | Re: Weird periodical pg log |