Re: SSI patch version 12
Anssi Kääriäinen <anssi.kaariainen@thl.fi>
From: Anssi Kääriäinen <anssi.kaariainen@thl.fi>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-01-17T07:58:35Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
While I haven't tried this patch, I tried to break the version 11 of the patch (some of the work was against earlier versions). In total I have used a full work day just trying to break things, but haven't been able to find anything after version 8. I can verify that the partial index issue is fixed, and the count(*) performance is a lot better now. One thing I have been thinking about is how does predicate locking indexes work when using functional indexes and functions marked as immutable but which really aren't. I don't know how predicate locking indexes works, so it might be that this is a non-issue. I haven't been able to break anything in this way, and even if I could, this is probably something that doesn't need anything else than a warning that if you label your index functions immutable when they aren't, serializable transactions might not work. On 01/15/2011 01:54 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > The index types other than btree don't have fine-grained support, > which I don't think is a fatal defect, but it would be nice to > implement. I may be able to get GiST working again this weekend in > addition to the documentation work. The others might not get done > for 9.1 unless someone who knows their way around the guts of those > AMs can give us some advice soon I wonder if there are people using GiST and GIN indexes and serializable transactions. When upgrading to 9.1 and if there is no backwards compatibility GUC this could be a problem... The amount of users in this category is probably very low anyways, so maybe this is not an issue worth worrying about. - Anssi