On Fri, 19 May 2017 01:52:00 -0500 "Karl O. Pinc" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2017 12:04:42 -0500 > Kevin Grittner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Karl O. Pinc <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> Free Software: "You don't pay back, you pay forward." -- Robert A. Heinlein -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
