| From: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Shubham Barai <shubhambaraiss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Borodin <amborodin86(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 6) |
| Date: | 2018-03-15 22:27:32 |
| Message-ID: | CAPpHfdvhwW4hQZtH_jgFNer6uR=sjyx9VAtsvOSz+dNzCOa29Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:25 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
wrote:
> Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
> > And what happen if somebody concurrently set (fastupdate = on)?
> > Can we miss conflicts because of that?
>
> I think it'd be better to have that option require AccessExclusive lock,
> so that it can never be changed concurrently with readers. Seems to me
> that penalizing every single read to cope with this case would be a bad
> trade-off.
As Andrey Borodin mentioned, we already do. Sorry for buzz :)
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-03-16 00:26:33 | Re: Clarification needed for comment in storage/file/fd.c |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2018-03-15 22:26:17 | Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 6) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christophe Pettus | 2018-03-16 10:11:36 | Updating our entry on the professional services page |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2018-03-15 22:26:17 | Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 6) |