Re: Serializable Isolation without blocking

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: "Markus Wanner" <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>,<nicolas(dot)barbier(at)gmail(dot)com>, <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 15:18:19
Message-ID: 4B46F85B020000250002E062@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:

> well the one place you *cannot* attach them is on the tuples.

The predicate locking schemes I've been reading about do attach
locks to tuples, as *part* of a complete strategy.

> you need to new able to lock hypothetical new tuples which don't
> exist yet.

That, too. Which is where other granularities and objects come in,
as you later noted.

-Kevin

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alex Hunsaker 2010-01-08 15:24:05 Re: Setting oom_adj on linux?
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2010-01-08 15:14:57 Re: Serializable Isolation without blocking