Re: Serializable Isolation without blocking

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Greg Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Albe Laurenz" <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Michael Cahill" <mjc(at)it(dot)usyd(dot)edu(dot)au>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Serializable Isolation without blocking
Date: 2009-05-11 13:49:52
Message-ID: 4A07E6B0.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Albe Laurenz" <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> 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?

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2009-05-11 13:59:48 Re: Serializable Isolation without blocking
Previous Message Dunia Ramazani 2009-05-11 13:34:35 Postgresql Developer