On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > Hi, > > On 2017-03-11 15:19:23 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: >> Here is a rebased patch. > > It seems that this patch is still undergoing development, review and > performance evaluation. Therefore it seems like it'd be a bad idea to > try to get this into v10. Any arguments against moving this to the next > CF?
None, and done. It would be good to get some feedback from Kevin on whether this is a reasonable approach, but considering that these data structures may finish up being redesigned as part of the GSoC project[1], it may be best to wait and see where that goes before doing anything. I'll follow developments there, and if this patch remains relevant I'll plan to do some more work on it including testing (possibly with the RUBiS benchmark from Kevin and Dan's paper since it seems the most likely to be able to really use parallelism) for PG11 CF1. [1] https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/GSoC_2017#Eliminate_O.28N.5E2.29_scaling_from_rw-conflict_tracking_in_serializable_transactions -- 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
