Re: Read Uncommitted

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-05-26 at 13:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hannu Krosing <hannu@krosing.net> writes:
>>> On Mon, 2008-05-26 at 16:55 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>>> If the data in a table never changes, why would VACUUM or HOT need to touch 
>>>> it?  The use case isn't clear to me.
>>> I guess the use-case is about a long read-write transaction doing
>>> read-only access to an update-only table and thus blocking vacuum on
>>> other tables.
>> ... in which case the proposed kluge would result in unstable,
>> unpredictable answers, so there is still no plausible use-case.
> 
> Separate databases?

OldestXmin calculation only includes transactions in the same database, 
except when vacuuming shared relations.

--   Heikki Linnakangas  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com