Re: GiST concurrency

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/

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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