Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 6)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Alexander Korotkov
Тема Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 6)
Дата
Msg-id CAPpHfdvhwW4hQZtH_jgFNer6uR=sjyx9VAtsvOSz+dNzCOa29Q@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 6)  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 6)  (Shubham Barai <shubhambaraiss@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:25 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
Alexander Korotkov wrote:

> And what happen if somebody concurrently set (fastupdate = on)?
> Can we miss conflicts because of that?

I think it'd be better to have that option require AccessExclusive lock,
so that it can never be changed concurrently with readers.  Seems to me
that penalizing every single read to cope with this case would be a bad
trade-off.

As Andrey Borodin mentioned, we already do.  Sorry for buzz :)

------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company 

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Alexander Korotkov
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 6)
Следующее
От: Michael Paquier
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Clarification needed for comment in storage/file/fd.c