MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2020 09:44:54 +0100
From: Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?J=C3=BCrgen_Purtz?= <juergen@purtz.de>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, "David G. Johnston"
 <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers
 <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Additional Chapter for Tutorial
In-Reply-To: <da4037ea-cf9f-0461-17c0-aeac257cedf4@purtz.de>
References: <13c65997-9502-7671-1a7b-50e5d5093514@purtz.de>
 <9df5b9c8-71fe-47a8-4670-346a0ae7e2cd@purtz.de>
 <d2a0cb79-7c87-9bb2-2bb9-9465ba69d854@2ndquadrant.com>
 <f3eeae6c-7e4d-4185-d792-9c97b9fd65f1@purtz.de>
 <567f7c92-dce9-7424-9022-54b31eb12740@purtz.de>
 <1B5F7D1E-B389-4D3B-973A-A8D183D8530A@yesql.se>
 <fdd0fd52-84d3-f7a1-b8c7-aed108d95615@purtz.de>
 <766cab17c6af48956558611520956b77@xs4all.nl>
 <ddfd3e05-407c-5e7b-d9f1-fadee15b5348@purtz.de>
 <d8e2f31f-f2e8-0482-2b10-2ae06a6b8fb7@2ndquadrant.com>
 <93fd8e15-8639-23c8-c7c4-d4cfca323189@purtz.de>
 <CAKFQuwZ_USvnhZ5wQLFtpr8v+iMiwvZOiVZhviQwPYGDVR7w+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <32c7ebc0-f69f-8a77-c397-8fcb9139d8d3@purtz.de>
 <CAKFQuwbqiZ4Er_e21oXt8J_JDyNucLMcW7murkMr0v=pTy10RA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKFQuwbtReW3dBO0HmZCb8rF4z-w+oFt24nPko8pbAk4Y2VWEw@mail.gmail.com>
 <779bb812-5238-f78b-2782-b1d990f952e3@purtz.de>
 <f13dcc2a57d4ce05ce1e83aa2f94396e@xs4all.nl>
 <7a081d6c-e288-615c-f32c-839fb27366ed@purtz.de>
 <c5328f092e9f6b05c0061d6f1842cc4a@xs4all.nl>
 <da4037ea-cf9f-0461-17c0-aeac257cedf4@purtz.de>
Message-ID: <759f7a615736d8066b3441571d371c68@xs4all.nl>
User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-11-02 09:26, Jürgen Purtz wrote:

> OLD:
> 
>     A first approach to implement protections against concurrent
>     access to the same data may be the locking of critical
>     rows. Two such techniques are:
>     <emphasis>Optimistic Concurrency Control</emphasis> (OCC)
>     and <emphasis>Two Phase Locking</emphasis> (2PL).
>     <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> implements a third, more
>     sophisticated technique: <firstterm>Multiversion Concurrency
>     Control</firstterm> (MVCC). The crucial advantage of MVCC ...
> 
> Proposal:
> 
>     A first approach to implement protections against concurrent
>     access to the same data may be the locking of critical
>     rows.
>     <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> implements a more
>     sophisticated technique which avoids any locking:
> <firstterm>Multiversion Concurrency
>     Control</firstterm> (MVCC). The crucial advantage of MVCC ...
> 
> Any thoughts or other suggestions?
> 

Yes, just leave it out. Much better, as far as I'm concerned.

Erik