> Turns out, their concurrency control is a poor-man's version of Left-Right

> Obviously, it's a bit sad when due credit is not given where it should be, but smart readers have added to the blog's comments and on hackernews that what is being described is indeed Left-Right (or a simpler but not as powerful version of it).

> This is ok because the good stuff will be re-discovered several times over, and Left-Right is certainly one of those gold nuggets.

IMHO the tone was quite annoying and overshadowed any good point the article could have about the complexity of proving concurrent algos.

But slightly on a tangent, re: the QuestDB algo, wouldn't hazard pointers solve the concurrent map problem in a cleaner way and avoid a globally contended reader counter?

That's exactly the tone he takes.