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: teo...@sigaev.ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
spgist_deadlock-1.patch.gz
Description: Unix tar archive
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
