| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Markus Wanner" <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
| Cc: | <nicolas(dot)barbier(at)gmail(dot)com>,"Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
| Subject: | Re: Serializable Isolation without blocking |
| Date: | 2010-01-08 15:14:57 |
| Message-ID: | 4B46F791020000250002E056@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> wrote:
> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> As I understand it, Greg's line of thinking is that we should use
>> a technique which has never proven practical on a large scale:
>> matching database changes against a list of predicate lock
>> expressions.
>
> I find that approach to predicate locking pretty interesting.
Sure, I find it interesting, too. Just not practical.
> unlike others, it scales with the number of concurrently held
> locks.
Times the number of checks for conflicting locks. So, O(N^2).
No thanks.
Now if there is a breakthrough in that technology which allows it to
compete favorably with techniques which model the logical predicates
against database structures, I'm all ears.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-01-08 15:18:19 | Re: Serializable Isolation without blocking |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2010-01-08 15:12:12 | Re: RFC: PostgreSQL Add-On Network |