On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 18:51 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> >So, it also seems clear that 8.0.x should eventually have a straight
> >upgrade path to a replacement, assuming the patent is granted.
> >We should therefore plan to:
> >1. improve/replace ARC for 8.1
> >2. backport any replacement directly onto 8.0STABLE as soon as any
> >patent is granted
> One of the reasons for Postgres' well deserved reputation for stability
> and reliability is that stable branches are ... stable. Backporting a
> large item like cache replacement mechanism doesn't seem to fit that too
> well. I wouldn't want to do that except as a complete last resort.
I agree... but I see no alternative to my point (2) though; I would
welcome additional options.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2005-01-18 00:45:45|
|Subject: Re: US Patents vs Non-US software ...|
|Previous:||From: Robert Treat||Date: 2005-01-18 00:02:30|
|Subject: Re: ARC patent|