From: | Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)it(dot)is(dot)rice(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Two-phase commit for 8.1 |
Date: | 2005-01-20 13:29:34 |
Message-ID: | 20050120132934.GC14816@it.is.rice.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 07:42:03PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> > If the patch is ready to be committed early in the cycle, I'd say most
> > definitely ... just depends on how late in the cycle its ready ...
>
> My recollection is that it's quite far from being complete. I had hoped
> to spend some time during the 8.1 cycle helping Heikki finish it up,
> but if we stick to the 2-month-dev-cycle idea I'm afraid there's no way
> it'll be done in time. I thought that "some time" would probably amount
> to a solid man-month or so, and there's no way I can spend half my time
> on just one feature for this cycle.
>
> If Heikki wants this in for 8.1, the right thing to do is vote against
> the short-dev-cycle idea. But we need a plausible answer about what to
> do about ARC to make that credible...
>
I think the idea of making a buffer management algorithm API and then
preparing a simple LRU algorithm to have ready to plug in if the ARC
patent is granted would be doable in a short development cycle. Then
we can take advantage of as well as test other algorithms more easily.
Ken
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Cave-Ayland | 2005-01-20 13:33:10 | Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2005-01-20 13:08:20 | Translations at pgfoundry (was Re: [PATCHES] Latest Turkish translation updates) |