On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Gosh, I think you're making this way more complicated than it needs to > be. My interpretation of the above statement was that they knew > individual page reads and writes would need to be made atomic - > probably using some form of simple locking - but omitted that from > their pseudocode for clarity.
That clearly isn't the case. The introductory paragraph of L&Y says the following: "Our solution compares favorably with earlier solutions in that the locking scheme is simpler (no read-locks are used) and only a (small) constant number of nodes are locked by any update process at any given time." They clearly and prominently state that not needing read locks is a major advantage of their algorithm, which doesn't quite ring true. > If this is what we're arguing about, it's completely not worth the > time we've spent on it. It isn't. It's a minor point, originally raised by Amit. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
