| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Shubham Barai <shubhambaraiss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Borodin <amborodin86(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Subject: | Re: GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 4) and patch for hash index |
| Date: | 2017-09-08 01:07:07 |
| Message-ID: | CAEepm=3ujsjkLFEA4qRA9y1GAbcmEwcvqOWSK5fiKmdBFw5BDg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Shubham,
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Shubham Barai <shubhambaraiss(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> If these two hash keys (78988658 and 546789888) mapped to the same bucket, this will result in false serialization failure.
> Please correct me if this assumption about false positives is wrong.
I wonder if there is an opportunity to use computed hash values
directly in predicate lock tags, rather than doing it on the basis of
buckets. Perhaps I'm missing something important about the way that
locks need to escalate that would prevent that from working.
> 3) tested my patch on the current head
This no longer applies, but it's in "Needs review" status in the
Commitfest. Could you please post a rebased version?
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-09-08 01:15:44 | Re: [POC] hash partitioning |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-09-08 00:52:48 | Re: pgbench: Skipping the creating primary keys after initialization |