Re: Serializable Isolation without blocking
От | Albe Laurenz |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Serializable Isolation without blocking |
Дата | |
Msg-id | D960CB61B694CF459DCFB4B0128514C202FF65B8@exadv11.host.magwien.gv.at обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Serializable Isolation without blocking ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>) |
Ответы |
Re: Serializable Isolation without blocking
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner wrote: > > All the authors show with regard to predicate handling is > > handwaving, > > That is because predicate locking is a mature technology with many > known implementations. The best technique for any database product > will depend on that product, and their technique doesn't depend on > which implementation is used. Assuming some form of predicate > locking, do you have any other qualms about the the algorithm > presented in the paper? No - given that the algorithm is correct (which the authors cite from another paper which I cannot easily access). In my first reply I wondered if the presence of concurrent "read committed" transactions would somehow affect the correctness of the algorithm, as the authors don't mention that. Yours, Laurenz Albe
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: