On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > As such there is no problem in saying the way you have mentioned, but > I feel it would be better if we can mention the mechanism of _bt_search() > as quoted by you upthread in the first line. > "> In more concrete terms, _bt_search() releases and only then acquires >> read locks during a descent of the tree (by calling >> _bt_relandgetbuf()), and, perhaps counterintuitively, that's just >> fine."
I guess I could say that too. > One more point, why you think it is important to add this new text > on top? I think adding new text after "Lehman and Yao don't require read > locks, .." paragraph is okay. I've added it to the top because it's really the most important point on Lehman and Yao. It's the _whole_ point. Consider how it's introduced here, for example: http://db.cs.berkeley.edu/jmh/cs262b/treeCCR.html Why should I "bury the lead"? -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
