| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Shubham Barai <shubhambaraiss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Borodin <amborodin86(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 6) |
| Date: | 2018-03-13 12:25:10 |
| Message-ID: | 20180313122510.xx2cumfyv2wfr5jn@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> And what happen if somebody concurrently set (fastupdate = on)?
> Can we miss conflicts because of that?
I think it'd be better to have that option require AccessExclusive lock,
so that it can never be changed concurrently with readers. Seems to me
that penalizing every single read to cope with this case would be a bad
trade-off.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrey Borodin | 2018-03-13 12:26:15 | Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 6) |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2018-03-13 12:02:14 | Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 6) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrey Borodin | 2018-03-13 12:26:15 | Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 6) |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2018-03-13 12:02:14 | Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 6) |