Re: Do we still have locking problems with concurrent users

From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Justin Clift" <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: "PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Do we still have locking problems with concurrent users
Date: 2002-03-06 03:16:50
Message-ID: GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOOEKCCBAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> It has not been fixed. One TODO item is to either stop mentioning hash
> at all or get it improved. We have been sitting on the fence for too
> long.

Could someone give me a quick rundown on where using a hash index would be
advantageous over using a btree index?

Thanks,

Chris

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Clift 2002-03-06 03:17:24 Re: Do we still have locking problems with concurrentusers
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-03-06 03:15:09 Re: Do we still have locking problems with concurrent users