Re: old synchronized scan patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Eng <eng(at)intranet(dot)greenplum(dot)com>
Subject: Re: old synchronized scan patch
Date: 2006-12-05 02:46:57
Message-ID: 25882.1165286817@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> Since I am not storing any pointers, and since the information is only
> really a hint, I don't need to do any locking on that page.

If you think that, you need not bother to submit the patch. (Hint:
as soon as you consider more than one table at a time, it doesn't work,
even ignoring the question of inconsistent reads.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2006-12-05 07:20:14 Re: old synchronized scan patch
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2006-12-05 01:43:00 Re: old synchronized scan patch