On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 16:25 +1100, Neil Conway wrote: > On Tue, 2005-01-18 at 23:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Not yet --- I suggested it but didn't get any yeas or nays. I don't > > feel this is solely core's decision anyway ... what do the assembled > > hackers think? > > I'm not sure it's a great idea.
It's not, but may still be required. We should defer any changes for a month, just to see if its feasible to do that. > I think the proper fix for the ARC issue is an 8.0.x release with a new > replacement policy. To avoid introducing instability into 8.0, we should > obviously test the new buffer replacement policy *very* carefully. Agreed. I prefer a plan that, if required, back ports NewStrategy to 8.0.x than one that hobbles 8.1, just in case. > However, I think the ARC replacement should *not* be a fundamental > change in behavior: the algorithm should still attempt to balance > recency and frequency, to adjust dynamically to changes in workload, to > avoid "sequential flooding", and to allow constant-time page > replacement. Agreed: Those are the requirements. It must also scale better as well. All of which have sufficient prior art that they could never be seen to in-themselves form the basis of a patent. > If such a patch were developed, I don't > think it would be a herculean task to include it in an 8.0.x release > after a lot of careful testing and code review. Agreed. -- Best Regards, Simon Riggs ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
