Re: 2nd Level Buffer Cache

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 2nd Level Buffer Cache
Date: 2011-03-21 19:45:54
Message-ID: 4D87AAF2.8040005@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> Was it really all that bad? IIRC we replaced ARC with the current clock
> sweep due to patent concerns. (Maybe there were performance concerns as
> well, I don't remember).

Yeah, that was why the patent was frustrating. Performance was poor and
we were planning on replacing ARC in 8.2 anyway. Instead we had to
backport it.

--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2011-03-21 19:58:16 Re: 2nd Level Buffer Cache
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-03-21 19:37:52 Re: Planner regression in 9.1: min(x) cannot use partial index with NOT NULL