Fwd: GSoC 2017 Proposal for "Explicitly support predicatelocks in index access methods besides btree" - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From anant khandelwal
Subject Fwd: GSoC 2017 Proposal for "Explicitly support predicatelocks in index access methods besides btree"
Date
Msg-id CAD=a8SDotUoLZt+_fCndSAi=rq2XcGye8Bp-gvFMrikNfvcctw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to GSoC 2017 Proposal for "Explicitly support predicate locks in indexaccess methods besides btree"  (anant khandelwal <anantbietec@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: anant khandelwal <anantbietec@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017 Proposal for "Explicitly support predicate locks in index access methods besides btree"
To: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com>


First ,I have read from this 



gistplacetopage is the workhorse function that performs one step of the insertion. If the tuple fits, it inserts it to the given page, otherwise it splits the page, and constructs the new downlink tuples for the split pages. The caller must then call gistplacetopage() on the parent page to insert the downlink tuples.

then  i look at how btree does that it does that by having a function -----


PredicateLockPageSplit(rel,BufferGetBlockNumber(buf),BufferGetBlockNumber(rbuf));


then i find how CheckPredicateLocking() is locking is implemented -----


The only conflict predicate locking cares about for indexes is when
* an index tuple insert conflicts with an existing lock. Since the
* actual location of the insert is hard to predict because of the
* random search used to prevent O(N^2) performance when there are
* many duplicate entries, we can just use the "first valid" page.


Scan all items on the GiST index page identified by *pageItem, and insert
* them into the queue (or directly to output areas)
So we need to put the predicateLockPage() there 

I think i have provided sufficient proof for the Index AM gist if you want i can give proof for all other ones also.

Thanks 
Anant



On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 9:03 AM, anant khandelwal <anantbietec@gmail.com> wrote:

> My name is Anant Khandelwal currently i am pursuing masters from IIT - Delhi
> and previously i am a software engineer.
>
> I am particularly interested in working on the project "Explicitly support
> predicate locks in index access methods besides b tree".

Anant,

Your post was mostly identical (as in copy/paste level identical) to a
post by Shubham Barai four days earlier.

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALxAEPvRcJzz0SJ2KB_ghaTRrdEj08rygUrFtr5NUQxc6uTeuQ@mail.gmail.com

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAD=a8SBZWGD4U-TASJP0OwTPiLEffHoz5O5eV0Um6digqBVvfg@mail.gmail.com

Unless you can produce convincing proof to the contrary, your proposal
will be disqualified because of plagiarism.

--
Kevin Grittner


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: parallel bitmapscan isn't exercised in regression tests