From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
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: | 2005-01-18 00:08:43 |
Message-ID: | 1106006923.14384.234.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 18:51 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> 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.
I agree... but I see no alternative to my point (2) though; I would
welcome additional options.
--
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-01-18 00:45:45 | Re: US Patents vs Non-US software ... |
Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2005-01-18 00:02:30 | Re: ARC patent |