On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Peter Geoghegan <
pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Amit Kapila <
amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > As such there is no problem in saying the way you have mentioned, but
> > I feel it would be better if we can mention the mechanism of _bt_search()
> > as quoted by you upthread in the first line.
> > "> In more concrete terms, _bt_search() releases and only then acquires
> >> read locks during a descent of the tree (by calling
> >> _bt_relandgetbuf()), and, perhaps counterintuitively, that's just
> >> fine."
>
> I guess I could say that too.
Okay.
> > One more point, why you think it is important to add this new text
> > on top? I think adding new text after "Lehman and Yao don't require read
> > locks, .." paragraph is okay.
>
> I've added it to the top because it's really the most important point
> on Lehman and Yao. It's the _whole_ point. Consider how it's
> introduced here, for example:
>
http://db.cs.berkeley.edu/jmh/cs262b/treeCCR.html>
> Why should I "bury the lead"?
I think even if you want to keep it at top, may be we could have another
heading like : Concurrency Considerations with Lehman & Yao Approach
However, I think we can leave this point for Committer to decide.