Re: SPGist "triple parity" concept doesn't work
| От | Teodor Sigaev |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: SPGist "triple parity" concept doesn't work |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 51B7654E.7060202@sigaev.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: SPGist "triple parity" concept doesn't work (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
> Anyway I now think that we might be better off with the other idea of > abandoning an insertion and retrying if we get a lock conflict. That > would at least not create any performance penalty for non-concurrent > scenarios; and even in concurrent cases, I suspect you'd have to be > rather unlucky to get penalties as bad as the heavyweight-lock solution > is showing. Agree, it would be a better workaround for now. I will be able to do this at this friday. I considered the idea to forbid placement of child on the same page as parent, but this implementation a) could significantly increase size of index, b) doesn't solve Greg's point. We definetly need new idea of locking protocol and I'll return to this problem at autumn (sorry, I havn't time in summer to do this research). -- Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: