| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Eng <eng(at)intranet(dot)greenplum(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: old synchronized scan patch |
| Date: | 2006-12-05 07:20:14 |
| Message-ID: | 1165303214.3117.2.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Ühel kenal päeval, E, 2006-12-04 kell 21:46, kirjutas Tom Lane:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> > Since I am not storing any pointers, and since the information is only
> > really a hint, I don't need to do any locking on that page.
>
> If you think that, you need not bother to submit the patch. (Hint:
> as soon as you consider more than one table at a time, it doesn't work,
> even ignoring the question of inconsistent reads.)
Why does it not work ?
Are you suggesting, that another backend can somegow see only some bits
of page number being written ?
What problems do you see in multiple table case ?
--
----------------
Hannu Krosing
Database Architect
Skype Technologies OÜ
Akadeemia tee 21 F, Tallinn, 12618, Estonia
Skype me: callto:hkrosing
Get Skype for free: http://www.skype.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2006-12-05 07:35:50 | Re: "Compacting" a relation |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-05 02:46:57 | Re: old synchronized scan patch |