Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > All the authors show with regard to predicate handling is
> > handwaving,
>
> That is because predicate locking is a mature technology with many
> known implementations. The best technique for any database product
> will depend on that product, and their technique doesn't depend on
> which implementation is used. Assuming some form of predicate
> locking, do you have any other qualms about the the algorithm
> presented in the paper?
No - given that the algorithm is correct (which the authors cite from
another paper which I cannot easily access).
In my first reply I wondered if the presence of concurrent "read committed"
transactions would somehow affect the correctness of the algorithm,
as the authors don't mention that.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
