| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Cahill <mjc(at)it(dot)usyd(dot)edu(dot)au>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
| Subject: | Re: Serializable Isolation without blocking |
| Date: | 2009-05-27 19:00:24 |
| Message-ID: | 1243450824.24860.352.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 13:34 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> For the record, it became clear that I did a bad job of communicating
> on this thread...
You did good work, IMHO. Not everything will reach consensus and that's
not your fault.
> first implement table level predicate
> locks, since that has to exist and would provide a complete, if
> somewhat clumsy, serializable solution; then move on to more
> fine-grained locks. It would probably be workable, and possibly
> optimal, to have just table and page locks; although it seems likely
> that index range locks and row locks would also be worth it,
> eventually.
Do we need table-level predicate locks at all? What would they give us?
Why not just go straight for fine-grained page-level locks?
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-05-27 19:07:24 | Re: Serializable Isolation without blocking |
| Previous Message | Caleb Welton | 2009-05-27 18:53:31 | Re: [PATCH] plpythonu datatype conversion improvements |