From: | Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
---|---|
To: | Jürgen Purtz <juergen(at)purtz(dot)de> |
Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Additional Chapter for Tutorial |
Date: | 2020-11-02 08:44:54 |
Message-ID: | 759f7a615736d8066b3441571d371c68@xs4all.nl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-11-02 09:26, Jürgen Purtz wrote:
> OLD:
>
> A first approach to implement protections against concurrent
> access to the same data may be the locking of critical
> rows. Two such techniques are:
> <emphasis>Optimistic Concurrency Control</emphasis> (OCC)
> and <emphasis>Two Phase Locking</emphasis> (2PL).
> <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> implements a third, more
> sophisticated technique: <firstterm>Multiversion Concurrency
> Control</firstterm> (MVCC). The crucial advantage of MVCC ...
>
> Proposal:
>
> A first approach to implement protections against concurrent
> access to the same data may be the locking of critical
> rows.
> <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> implements a more
> sophisticated technique which avoids any locking:
> <firstterm>Multiversion Concurrency
> Control</firstterm> (MVCC). The crucial advantage of MVCC ...
>
> Any thoughts or other suggestions?
>
Yes, just leave it out. Much better, as far as I'm concerned.
Erik
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chris Wilson | 2020-11-02 12:38:03 | Re: What does "[backends] should seldom or never need to wait for a write to occur" mean? |
Previous Message | Jürgen Purtz | 2020-11-02 08:26:27 | Re: Additional Chapter for Tutorial |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-11-02 08:45:57 | Re: Enumize logical replication message actions |
Previous Message | Jürgen Purtz | 2020-11-02 08:26:27 | Re: Additional Chapter for Tutorial |