Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Date: 2014-01-27 17:58:42
Message-ID: CA+U5nMKmWtAyqQS7gxzL9MjwLNXXWjLmFe0jEbgB0FX9F4p9GA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 27 January 2014 17:58, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 24 January 2014 08:33, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 24 January 2014 07:08, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:57 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> v15 to fix the above problem.
>>>
>> v16 attached
>
> v17 attached

Frostbite...

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Attachment Content-Type Size
reduce_lock_levels.v17.patch application/octet-stream 28.8 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2014-01-27 18:00:54 Re: A better way than tweaking NTUP_PER_BUCKET
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2014-01-27 17:58:02 Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe