Serguei Mokhov <mokhov(at)cs(dot)concordia(dot)ca> writes:
> Re: subject -- shouldn't it be "replacement" and _not_ "removal" of ARC?
> Wouldn't it been much more usable and fair to be able to "load" any of those
> modules as I am, the user see fit? So, I could swap the algos on the fly
> whichever better suits me? That will also lay down ground suitable for easier
> performance testing between the modules should people write their own, new
Fairness doesn't enter into it --- we have to get out from under the
upcoming patent, whether you think that's fair or not. As for the other
point, I already did the work needed to isolate this code into one file.
Anyone who wants to experiment can do so by inserting different versions
of freelist.c, which surely should be well within the ability of anyone
competent to do such experiments. I have no interest in setting up some
kind of hot-pluggable interface for this code: it doesn't look to me
like the development, testing, or maintenance burden would be repaid.
(As for on-the-fly changes, that's a complete non-starter because of the
differing demands for shared memory. So at best you'd be able to change
algorithms during postmaster restart, anyway.)
If someone is able to show, using these patches, that there is a really
significant difference between these algorithms, then I might reconsider
that position. But for now my answer is that it's not worth the trouble.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-02-04 17:57:07|
|Subject: Re: Proof-of-concept ARC removal patches |
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2005-02-04 16:51:54|
|Subject: Re: libpq API incompatibility between 7.4 and 8.0|