Concurrency control questions 6.3.2 vs. 6.4

From: Steve Frampton <frampton(at)mail(dot)flarc(dot)edu(dot)on(dot)ca>
To: PostgreSQL-development <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Concurrency control questions 6.3.2 vs. 6.4
Date: 1998-11-15 23:04:10
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.05.9811151754430.18130-100000@mail.flarc.edu.on.ca
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello:

I noticed the locking code in the backend/storage/lmgr directory has had a
lot of modifications between 6.3.2 vs. 6.4. I know that Vadim is working
on changing the table-level locking scheme of 6.3.2 towards a
multi-version concurrency control scheme. I'm wondering how much along
these modifications are -- it looks like there were changes made to the
existing locking scheme but no additional features were added. This is
based on a very cursory look at the locking code in 6.4 (the locking code
is a lot more complicated than I had initially thought it was going to
be).

I'm curious as to how the multi-version scheme will be implemented. Vadim
said that Postgres has a non-overwriting storage manager which can be
exploited for this concurrency control scheme. I'm not sure I understand
him -- values that are updated in a table are written to the database in
such a fashion that the old value remains accessible? This is
accomplished without a recovery log?

Also, there is some user-level locking code in the contrib directory by
Massimo that (if I am correct in my understanding of it), seems to be
providing row-level locking capabilities through query selects. Is this
something that will be added to the Postgresql core at a future date?

Thanks in advance for any information you can provide.

--------------< LINUX: The choice of a GNU generation. >--------------
Steve Frampton <3srf(at)qlink(dot)queensu(dot)ca> http://qlink.queensu.ca/~3srf

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Taral 1998-11-16 03:02:34 SQL vs. OQL
Previous Message Tom Lane 1998-11-15 22:08:12 Re: [HACKERS] BIG grant problem