Re: Changing shared_buffers without restart

> On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 09:55:05PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>
> BTW, this idea isn't new and it's certainly not only mine.
> It's a combination of an implementation shared by Thomas Munro [4] and
> an implementation I had shared with you offlist on 30th January 2025.
> I never saw any comments from you on the specific changes in those
> implementations and neither anything from those patchsets was absorbed
> in your patchsets.

Well, this is imply not true. We had an extensive discussion for long
time off-list and even a few video calls to talk through various design
options and agree about next steps.

> I don't know your solution. But if it's similar to my proposal, we are
> in agreement and can work further in parallel on subproblems. If it's
> different, let's discuss pros and cons of both - maybe there is some
> value in letting those evolve parallely and let the community choose
> the best, or choose best of both solutions giving rise to a new
> solution. My patchset might give you solutions/code for the problems
> you are trying to solve. It has tests which you can adapt to your
> solution. Many exciting possibilities lie ahead with multiple working
> solutions. Knowing nothing about the solution you are attempting, it's
> hard to know which of these apply and help you.

I've shared many times on- and off-list the general directions I'm
working in and even the expected timeline, so it's strange to state you
don't know it.

In the end you're free to do whatever you want, fortunately it's open
source. But posting an alternative patch series and "let the community
choose" does sound like hijacking to me, and a direct way to split and
reduce already scarse review attention.