| From: | "Albe Laurenz" <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner *EXTERN*" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, "Greg Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Michael Cahill" <mjc(at)it(dot)usyd(dot)edu(dot)au>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Serializable Isolation without blocking |
| Date: | 2009-05-11 14:07:47 |
| Message-ID: | D960CB61B694CF459DCFB4B0128514C202FF65B8@exadv11.host.magwien.gv.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > All the authors show with regard to predicate handling is
> > handwaving,
>
> That is because predicate locking is a mature technology with many
> known implementations. The best technique for any database product
> will depend on that product, and their technique doesn't depend on
> which implementation is used. Assuming some form of predicate
> locking, do you have any other qualms about the the algorithm
> presented in the paper?
No - given that the algorithm is correct (which the authors cite from
another paper which I cannot easily access).
In my first reply I wondered if the presence of concurrent "read committed"
transactions would somehow affect the correctness of the algorithm,
as the authors don't mention that.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-05-11 14:11:55 | Re: Serializable Isolation without blocking |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2009-05-11 13:59:48 | Re: Serializable Isolation without blocking |