| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SSI predicate locking on heap -- tuple or row? |
| Date: | 2011-06-03 10:04:24 |
| Message-ID: | 4DE8B1A8.2020505@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 03.06.2011 00:14, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Attached is a comments-only patch for this, along with one
> correction to the comments you added and a couple other typos.
Ok, committed.
> I'll submit a patch for the README-SSI file once I find a reference
> I like to a paper describing what Dan's proof uses as a premise --
> that the transaction on the rw-conflict *out* side of the pivot must
> not only be the first of the three transactions in the dangerous
> structure to commit, but the first in the entire cycle of which the
> dangerous structure is a part. With that premise as a given, the
> proof is short, clear, and unassailable; but I think we need a cite
> to use that argument convincingly.
Agreed.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2011-06-03 11:02:49 | WIP: Fast GiST index build |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-06-03 09:56:22 | Re: storing TZ along timestamps |