Re: Synchronized snapshots versus multiple databases

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Synchronized snapshots versus multiple databases
Date: 2011-10-21 18:10:10
Message-ID: 29284.1319220610@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
> AFAIR, the performance hit we'd take by making the vacuum cutoff point
> (i.e. GetOldestXmin()) global instead of database-local has been repeatedly
> used in the past as an against against cross-database queries. I have to
> admit that I currently cannot seem to find an entry in the archives to
> back that up, though.

To my mind, the main problem with cross-database queries is that none of
the backend is set up to deal with more than one set of system catalogs.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-10-21 18:11:53 Re: Synchronized snapshots versus multiple databases
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-10-21 18:08:24 Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?