| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, hailong(dot)li(at)qunar(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: SPGist "triple parity" concept doesn't work |
| Date: | 2013-06-14 18:28:38 |
| Message-ID: | 15703.1371234518@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> writes:
>> 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.
> done, look at the patch.
Looks good, committed with some cosmetic adjustments.
> 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).
OK. I think the performance of this way will be okay, actually, in most
cases anyhow. It'll do till we have a better idea.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2013-06-14 19:50:16 | Re: [PATCH] pgbench --throttle (submission 7 - with lag measurement) |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2013-06-14 18:22:56 | Re: Hard to Use WAS: Hard limit on WAL space |