| From: | Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) |
| Date: | 2005-01-18 23:01:01 |
| Message-ID: | 1106089261.2886.575.camel@jeff |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-announce pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
> Certainly not; ACID was a recognized goal long before anyone thought of
> MVCC. You do need much more locking to make it work without MVCC,
> though --- for instance, a reader that is interested in a just-modified
> row has to block until the writer completes or rolls back.
>
> People who hang around Postgres too long tend to think that MVCC is the
> obviously correct way to do things, but much of the rest of the world
> thinks differently ;-)
Well, that would explain why everyone is so happy with PostgreSQL's
concurrent access performance.
Thanks for the information, although I'm not sure I wanted to be
reminded about complicated locking issues ( I suppose I must have known
that at one time, but perhaps I surpressed it ;-)
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Browne | 2005-01-19 05:09:53 | Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) |
| Previous Message | Sailesh Krishnamurthy | 2005-01-18 22:42:32 | Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2005-01-18 23:48:00 | Re: ARC patent |
| Previous Message | Sailesh Krishnamurthy | 2005-01-18 22:42:32 | Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2005-01-18 23:24:37 | Re: rtree: improve performance, tuple killing |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2005-01-18 22:59:46 | Re: dllist.c 0 -> NULL |