Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Hmm, what I gathered was that that's not changing any basic semantic > guarantees (and therefore is okay to control as a GUC). But I > haven't read the paper so maybe I'm missing something. The paper never suggests attempting these techniques without a predicate locking implementation. It was just something Robert Haas noticed during our discussion at the bar (and he wasn't even consuming any alcohol that night!) that it would be a possible development path. I don't think either of us sees it as a useful end point. Basically, if you just took out locks on the rows you happened to read (rather than doing proper predicate locking) you would still prevent some anomalies, in a more-or-less predictable and controllable way. I think we both felt that the predicate locking might be the hardest part to implement in PostgreSQL, so having such a proof of concept partial implemenation without first implementing predicate locking might fit with the "series of smaller patches" approach generally preferred by the PostgreSQL developers. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
