Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 4) and patchfor hash index
От | Thomas Munro |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 4) and patchfor hash index |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAEepm=3ujsjkLFEA4qRA9y1GAbcmEwcvqOWSK5fiKmdBFw5BDg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 4) and patch for hash index (Shubham Barai <shubhambaraiss@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 4) and patchfor hash index
Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 4) and patchfor hash index |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Shubham, On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Shubham Barai <shubhambaraiss@gmail.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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: