Kevin Grittner wrote: > > All the authors show with regard to predicate handling is > > handwaving, > > That is because predicate locking is a mature technology with many > known implementations. The best technique for any database product > will depend on that product, and their technique doesn't depend on > which implementation is used. Assuming some form of predicate > locking, do you have any other qualms about the the algorithm > presented in the paper?
No - given that the algorithm is correct (which the authors cite from another paper which I cannot easily access). In my first reply I wondered if the presence of concurrent "read committed" transactions would somehow affect the correctness of the algorithm, as the authors don't mention that. Yours, Laurenz Albe -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
