Re: SPGist "triple parity" concept doesn't work - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Teodor Sigaev
Subject Re: SPGist "triple parity" concept doesn't work
Date
Msg-id 51BB094C.2020209@sigaev.ru
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SPGist "triple parity" concept doesn't work  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: SPGist "triple parity" concept doesn't work
List pgsql-hackers
> Anyway I now think that we might be better off with the other idea of
> abandoning an insertion and retrying if we get a lock conflict.

done, look at the patch.

I was faced with the fact that my mail is considered spam by postgresql.org, so
I repeat some hthoughts from previous mail:

I considered the idea to forbid placement of child on the same page as parent,
but this implementation a) could significantly increase size of index, b)
doesn't solve Greg's point.

We definetly need new idea of locking protocol and I'll return to this problem
at autumn (sorry, I havn't time in summer to do this research).

--
Teodor Sigaev                                   E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru
                                                    WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Issue with PGC_BACKEND parameters
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add transforms feature