From: | Shubham Barai <shubhambaraiss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Borodin <amborodin86(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
Subject: | Re: GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 4) and patch for hash index |
Date: | 2017-09-25 13:34:10 |
Message-ID: | CALxAEPtDewLA13HY9nx1hmeCPVoHzv-J+=Uv0vkwqxTxKa1gig@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Thomas,
I have attached the rebased version of patch here.
Kind Regards,
Shubham
On 8 September 2017 at 06:37, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
wrote:
> Hi Shubham,
>
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Shubham Barai <shubhambaraiss(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > If these two hash keys (78988658 and 546789888) mapped to the same
> bucket, this will result in false serialization failure.
> > Please correct me if this assumption about false positives is wrong.
>
> I wonder if there is an opportunity to use computed hash values
> directly in predicate lock tags, rather than doing it on the basis of
> buckets. Perhaps I'm missing something important about the way that
> locks need to escalate that would prevent that from working.
>
> > 3) tested my patch on the current head
>
> This no longer applies, but it's in "Needs review" status in the
> Commitfest. Could you please post a rebased version?
>
> --
> Thomas Munro
> http://www.enterprisedb.com
>
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
Predicate-locking-in-hash-index_4.patch | application/octet-stream | 30.0 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-25 14:14:37 | Re: BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? |
Previous Message | Jeevan Ladhe | 2017-09-25 12:42:59 | Re: Binary search in fmgr_isbuiltin() is a bottleneck. |