From: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Kevin Grittner *EXTERN* <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Subject: | Re: Update on true serializable techniques in MVCC |
Date: | 2009-12-16 18:29:43 |
Message-ID: | 4B292717.40404@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas írta:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Haas escribió:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday 16 December 2009 16:24:42 Robert Haas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Inserts and deletes follow the same protocol, obtaining an exclusive
>>>>>>> lock on the row after the one being inserted or deleted. The result
>>>>>>> of this locking protocol is that a range scan prevents concurrent
>>>>>>> inserts or delete within the range of the scan, and vice versa.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That sounds like it should actually work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only if you can guarantee that the database will access the rows using
>>>>>> some particular index. If it gets to the data some other way it might
>>>>>> accidentally circumvent the lock. That's kind of a killer in terms of
>>>>>> making this work for PostgreSQL.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Isnt the whole topic only relevant for writing access? There you have to
>>>>> access the index anyway.
>>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I guess you have to insert the new tuple. I guess while you
>>>> were at it you might check whether the next tuple is locked...
>>>>
>>> So you'd have to disable HOT updates when true serializability was
>>> active?
>>>
>> I thought about that, but I don't think so. HOT only applies to
>> updates, and predicate locking only applies to inserts. Unless I have
>> my head in the sand?
>>
>
> Err, no, wait. Predicate locking can apply to updates, but since HOT
> updates never update an indexed column, I think we might still be OK?
>
A predicate can include columns from an index plus others.
Am I missing something?
> ...Robert
>
>
--
Bible has answers for everything. Proof:
"But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more
than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:37) - basics of digital technology.
"May your kingdom come" - superficial description of plate tectonics
----------------------------------
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
http://www.postgresql.at/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-12-16 18:30:19 | Re: Update on true serializable techniques in MVCC |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-12-16 18:27:08 | Re: Update on true serializable techniques in MVCC |