From: | Pailloncy Jean-Gerard <jg(at)rilk(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Concurrent free-lock |
Date: | 2005-01-26 11:22:20 |
Message-ID: | 8B01194C-6F8C-11D9-9590-000A95DE2550@rilk.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> This is a very important thread. Many thanks to Jean-Gerard for
> bringing
> the community's attention to this.
Thanks Simon.
I was working during my PhD on some parallel algorithm. The computer
was a 32-grid processor in 1995. In this architecture we need to do the
lock on the data, with minimum contention. We can not do a lock on the
code path with mutex, because there was 32 different boards and a sync
across the system was not doable. The data was a mesh graph that
represent the segmentation of some satellite image.
When I see this paper with some good test, I remember this old days and
think that if we have some generic algorithm for type like hash, tree,
list with "lock-free parallel read" property it will be a very good
win.
I think about an other paper I read on the PostgreSQL site about an
algorithm with a global ordering of transaction design for multi-master
database. I do not remember the url.
The third thing that come to my mind, is the next generation of
slony/pgcluster.
Cordialement,
Jean-Gérard Pailloncy
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bojidar Mihajlov | 2005-01-26 11:26:25 | Re: RQ: Prepared statements used by multiple connections |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2005-01-26 11:19:36 | Re: Patent issues and 8.1 |