Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 4) and patch for hash index

2017-09-29 Thread Alexander Korotkov
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:07 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > Hi Shubham, > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Shubham Barai > wrote: > > If these two hash keys (78988658 and 546789888) mapped to the same > bucket, this will result in false

Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 4) and patch for hash index

2017-09-25 Thread Shubham Barai
Hi Thomas, I have attached the rebased version of patch here. Kind Regards, Shubham On 8 September 2017 at 06:37, Thomas Munro wrote: > Hi Shubham, > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Shubham Barai > wrote: > > If these two hash keys

Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 4) and patch for hash index

2017-09-07 Thread Thomas Munro
Hi Shubham, On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Shubham Barai wrote: > If these two hash keys (78988658 and 546789888) mapped to the same bucket, > this will result in false serialization failure. > Please correct me if this assumption about false positives is wrong. I

[HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 4) and patch for hash index

2017-06-27 Thread Shubham Barai
Project: Explicitly support predicate locks in index AMs besides b-tree Hi, During this week, I continued my work on predicate locking in the hash index and created a patch for it. As I have written in my proposal for the hash index, every scan operation acquires a predicate lock on the primary