| From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Patent issues and 8.1 |
| Date: | 2005-01-27 15:40:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20050127113856.P34296@ganymede.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> What's really being debated here is how we can have adequate confidence
> in a change that is admittedly larger than we like to back-patch. It's
> not an unprecedented thing mind you; we have back-patched some fairly
> large bug fixes in the past. But it's a bit galling to be taking any
> such risk for purely legal rather than technical reasons.
How hard would it be to do as several have suggested already ... abstract
out the ARC/LRU stuff into an API? Then, we wouldn't have to remove ARC,
per se, only shift it? Wouldn't that be a smaller patch overall? Then,
for our non-US users, they could continue to use ARC even after the patent
(myself included), while a plug-in replacement could be available for US
users?
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-01-27 15:49:07 | Re: Patent issues and 8.1 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-01-27 15:27:13 | Re: Patent issues and 8.1 |