On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > As such there is no problem in saying the way you have mentioned, but > > I feel it would be better if we can mention the mechanism of _bt_search() > > as quoted by you upthread in the first line. > > "> In more concrete terms, _bt_search() releases and only then acquires > >> read locks during a descent of the tree (by calling > >> _bt_relandgetbuf()), and, perhaps counterintuitively, that's just > >> fine." > > I guess I could say that too.
Okay. > > One more point, why you think it is important to add this new text > > on top? I think adding new text after "Lehman and Yao don't require read > > locks, .." paragraph is okay. > > I've added it to the top because it's really the most important point > on Lehman and Yao. It's the _whole_ point. Consider how it's > introduced here, for example: > http://db.cs.berkeley.edu/jmh/cs262b/treeCCR.html > > Why should I "bury the lead"? I think even if you want to keep it at top, may be we could have another heading like : Concurrency Considerations with Lehman & Yao Approach However, I think we can leave this point for Committer to decide. With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
