| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: amcheck verification for GiST |
| Date: | 2019-03-29 00:35:06 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=Km8UYgH4oQn9CDNZZFqsm6e4HHj22GNi-3Jj-7uAcuA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:08 AM Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> wrote:
> >> Is this really needed? Isn't the ShareLock on the index sufficient? If so, why?
> > There may be concurrent inserts? In GiST they can reorder items on page.
>
> Looks like I've tried to cope with same problem twice:
> v3 of the patch used AccessShareLock and many locks with incorrect order.
> We could use one of possible solutions: either use ShareLock, or rewrite scan to correct locking order.
> But patches v4-v7 use both.
It definitely has to be one or the other. The combination makes no sense.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nagaura, Ryohei | 2019-03-29 00:39:57 | RE: Timeout parameters |
| Previous Message | Jamison, Kirk | 2019-03-29 00:32:13 | RE: Timeout parameters |