| 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: | 41EC4F85.20204@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-01-17 23:54:03 | Re: ARC patent |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-01-17 23:43:28 | Re: ARC patent |