Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 4) and patchfor hash index

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Shubham Barai
Тема Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 4) and patchfor hash index
Дата
Msg-id CALxAEPtDewLA13HY9nx1hmeCPVoHzv-J+=Uv0vkwqxTxKa1gig@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 4) and patchfor hash index  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 4) and patchfor hash index  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Hi Thomas,

I have attached the rebased version of patch here.


Kind Regards,
Shubham

On 8 September 2017 at 06:37, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
Hi Shubham,

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Shubham Barai <shubhambaraiss@gmail.com> wrote:
> If these two hash keys (78988658 and 546789888) mapped to the same bucket, this will result in false serialization failure.
> Please correct me if this assumption about false positives is wrong.

I wonder if there is an opportunity to use computed hash values
directly in predicate lock tags, rather than doing it on the basis of
buckets.  Perhaps I'm missing something important about the way that
locks need to escalate that would prevent that from working.

> 3) tested my patch on the current head

This no longer applies, but it's in "Needs review" status in the
Commitfest.  Could you please post a rebased version?

--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com

Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Jeevan Ladhe
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Binary search in fmgr_isbuiltin() is a bottleneck.
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?