| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, "Kevin Grittner *EXTERN*" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Update on true serializable techniques in MVCC |
| Date: | 2009-12-16 15:29:23 |
| Message-ID: | 200912161629.24399.andres@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Moin,
On Wednesday 16 December 2009 16:24:42 Robert Haas wrote:
> > Inserts and deletes follow the same protocol, obtaining an exclusive
> > lock on the row after the one being inserted or deleted. The result
> > of this locking protocol is that a range scan prevents concurrent
> > inserts or delete within the range of the scan, and vice versa.
> >
> > That sounds like it should actually work.
>
> Only if you can guarantee that the database will access the rows using
> some particular index. If it gets to the data some other way it might
> accidentally circumvent the lock. That's kind of a killer in terms of
> making this work for PostgreSQL.
Isnt the whole topic only relevant for writing access? There you have to
access the index anyway.
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-12-16 15:36:52 | Re: Update on true serializable techniques in MVCC |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-12-16 15:24:42 | Re: Update on true serializable techniques in MVCC |