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