Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 4) and patchfor hash index - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 4) and patchfor hash index
Date
Msg-id CAEepm=3ujsjkLFEA4qRA9y1GAbcmEwcvqOWSK5fiKmdBFw5BDg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 4) and patch for hash index  (Shubham Barai <shubhambaraiss@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 4) and patchfor hash index  (Shubham Barai <shubhambaraiss@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 4) and patchfor hash index  (Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>)
List pgsql-hackers
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


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pgbench: Skipping the creating primary keys after initialization
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning