Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: ARC patent

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>,Nicolai Tufar <ntufar(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,Ismail Teppeev <iteppeev(at)gmail(dot)com>,John Hansen <john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au>,Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>,Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>,pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ARC patent
Date: 2005-01-17 23:51:33
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.



In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2005-01-17 23:54:03
Subject: Re: ARC patent
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-01-17 23:43:28
Subject: Re: ARC patent

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group