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 serialization failure.
> > Please correct me if this assumption
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 (78988658 and 546789888) mapped to the same
> bucket, thi
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 wonder if there is an opport
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
p
