RE: [GENERAL] TODO list elements

From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "Vadim Mikheev" <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru>
Cc: "The Hermit Hacker" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, <pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: RE: [GENERAL] TODO list elements
Date: 1998-12-14 09:13:14
Message-ID: 000001be2741$fa8f37c0$2801007e@cadzone.tpf.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: root(at)dune(dot)krs(dot)ru [mailto:root(at)dune(dot)krs(dot)ru]On Behalf Of Vadim
> Mikheev
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 5:03 PM
> To: Hiroshi Inoue
> Cc: The Hermit Hacker; pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] TODO list elements
>
>
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> >
> > > And note - this will be not row level locking, but
> > > multi-version concurrency control.
> > >
> >
> > What does it mean ?
> > LLL in 6.5 doesn't include row level locking ?
>
> One systems (Informix, Sybase) use locking for concurrency control,
> another ones (Oracle, Interbase) use multi-versioning for this.
> I'm implementing multi-version concurrency control.
>

My words might be obscure.

What I meant was

How writers block other writers in LLL ?

Certainly readers block no writers(readers) in LLL.
But writers block no writers or the same-row writers or the same-table
writers ?

Currently writers block the same-table writers(readers also) ?

Thanks.

Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vadim Mikheev 1998-12-14 09:21:03 Re: [GENERAL] TODO list elements
Previous Message Vadim Mikheev 1998-12-14 08:03:12 Re: [GENERAL] TODO list elements

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vadim Mikheev 1998-12-14 09:21:03 Re: [GENERAL] TODO list elements
Previous Message The Hermit Hacker 1998-12-14 08:07:30 nabstime.c changes...