Re: [GENERAL] Serializable isolation -- are predicate locks still held across all databases?

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Karl O. Pinc wrote: > 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? Yeah, I guess it's worth

Re: [GENERAL] Serializable isolation -- are predicate locks still held across all databases?

On Fri, 19 May 2017 01:52:00 -0500 "Karl O. Pinc" wrote: > On Thu, 18 May 2017 12:04:42 -0500 > Kevin Grittner wrote: > > > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Karl O. Pinc wrote: > > > > > ... Does PG > > > now pay attention to database in

Re: [GENERAL] Serializable isolation -- are predicate locks still held across all databases?

On Thu, 18 May 2017 12:04:42 -0500 Kevin Grittner wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Karl O. Pinc 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,

Re: [GENERAL] Serializable isolation -- are predicate locks still held across all databases?

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Karl O. Pinc wrote: > I forget all the details, but some time ago I found > that I had to increase max_pred_locs_per_transaction. > What I recall about the reason for this is that I'm > using the serializable transaction isolation, and that > I've

[GENERAL] Serializable isolation -- are predicate locks still held across all databases?

Hi, I forget all the details, but some time ago I found that I had to increase max_pred_locs_per_transaction. What I recall about the reason for this is that I'm using the serializable transaction isolation, and that I've a test database which occasionally has extremely long running transactions.