Re: Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree

From: Andrew Borodin <borodin(at)octonica(dot)com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Vladimir Borodin <root(at)simply(dot)name>
Subject: Re: Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree
Date: 2017-01-21 12:25:34
Message-ID: CAJEAwVH=NyO2q635XT1DsuCVEZ3DB705vc_56NqMfu8UA44bXQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello Jeff!

>Review of the code itself:
How do you think, is there anything else to improve in that patch or
we can mark it as 'Ready for committer'?

I've checked the concurrency algorithm with original work of Lehman
and Yao on B-link-tree. For me everything looks fine (safe, deadlock
free and not increased probability of livelock due to
LockBufferForCleanup call).

Best regards, Andrey Borodin.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2017-01-21 14:03:02 Re: Checksums by default?
Previous Message Erik Rijkers 2017-01-21 11:29:18 pdf versus single-html