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@gmail.com
> <mailto:melvin6925@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
