Re: ARC patent
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ARC patent |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1105958412.14384.100.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | ARC patent (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 01:15 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes: > > FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application > > is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok): > > > http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040098541%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040098541&RS=DN/20040098541 On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 01:15 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > I fear we'll have to change or remove > that code. At very least, ARC should not be further mentioned in any press release or beta history files until we resolve where we are. There'll be less need for a retraction if the buffer strategy is not publicised. The code separation of bufmgr.c and freelist.c means that changes can be done later without too much of a problem. Any required changes can be made under the covers without external recall-notices or such. Well, considering the BufMgrLock problems, it was likely that some changes would need to be be made to that algorithm anyway. ARC may be optimal in lab tests, but I'm beginning to think that it's not optimal in multi-processing environments. It also takes no direct account of the workload it is being asked to support, so ISTM that we should be able to use workload hints, along the lines of StrategyHintVacuum, to get a more responsive algorithm suited specifically to PostgreSQL - which would be harder to claim rights on. -- Best Regards, Simon Riggs
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: