From: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: GiST concurrency |
Date: | 2005-06-21 14:39:36 |
Message-ID: | 42B826A8.7050609@sigaev.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> If the method needs a truly global LSN, then it is broken --- the only
> way you could have such a value and have it stay good long enough to do
> anything with it is to block all other backends from inserting any new
> WAL records. Which is the very antithesis of concurrency.
>
Global LSN needs to recognize page split produced another process by search
algorithm, no more.
> I think you probably misunderstood the paper. It looks to me like the
> proposal in the paper is to use the LSN assigned to the WAL record that
> represents a page split operation. Which you get from the XLogInsert
> --- there's no need for an extra call.
You partially right, I don't read it with care chaper 10.1 last paragraph :(
<quotation>
To alleviate the traffic on this high-frequency counter (LSN - teodor),
descending operations can memorize the node's LSN instead.
</quotation>
So, value of global LSN isn't needed.
--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | AgentM | 2005-06-21 14:58:59 | Re: Escape handling in strings |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-21 14:32:10 | Re: Schedule for 8.1 feature freeze |