From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: New CRC algorithm: Slicing by 8 |
Date: | 2006-10-23 02:17:16 |
Message-ID: | 10377.1161569836@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>>> Also, why are we more critical of an Intel-provided
>>> idea than any other idea we get from the community?
>>
>> Bitter experience with other companies.
> The problem is we have lots of companies involved, and I bet some we
> don't even know about (e.g. yahoo/gmail addresses),
It's not so much that I don't trust Intel as that a CRC algorithm is
exactly the sort of nice little self-contained thing that people love
to try to patent these days. What I am really afraid of is that someone
else has already invented this same method (or something close enough
to it) and filed for a patent that Intel doesn't know about either.
I'd be wondering about that no matter where the code had come from.
Given the numbers I posted earlier today, the proposal is dead in the
water anyway, quite aside from any legal considerations.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hitoshi Harada | 2006-10-23 02:18:39 | Re: [PATCHES] smartvacuum() instead of autovacuum |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-23 02:09:52 | Re: [PATCHES] smartvacuum() instead of autovacuum |