Re: SPGist "triple parity" concept doesn't work

From: Will Crawford <billcrawford1970(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, hailong(dot)li(at)qunar(dot)com
Subject: Re: SPGist "triple parity" concept doesn't work
Date: 2013-06-10 15:41:35
Message-ID: CAJDxst5F-YZdkqSP6tHu8HmcMCiLaVQhagBybr6+EDmH_-BhKg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 7 June 2013 02:32, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Hm, good point. That reinforces my feeling that the page-number-based
> approach isn't workable as a guarantee; though we might want to keep
> that layout rule as a heuristic that would help reduce contention.

Can the locks just be taken in, say, numeric order of the pages involved?

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2013-06-10 15:43:28 Re: JSON and unicode surrogate pairs
Previous Message Tom Lane 2013-06-10 15:38:37 Re: pg_filedump 9.3: checksums (and a few other fixes)