* Frost, Stephen (sfrowt(at)snowman(dot)net) wrote:
> Haven't really looked over the patches yet but I wanted to push back
> on this a bit- you're suggesting that we'd continue to maintain and
> update slru.c for the benefit of extensions which use it while none of
> the core code uses it? For how long? For my 2c, at least, I'd rather
> we tell extension authors that they need to update their code instead.
> There's reasons why we're moving the SLRUs into the main buffer pool
> and having page headers for them and using the existing page code to
> read/write them and extension authors should be eager to gain those
> advantages too. Not sure how much concern to place on extensions that
> aren't willing to adjust to changes like these.
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for your response. I proposed this version of the patch with the
idea to make the changes gradual, and to minimize disruption of existing
functionality, with the idea of eventually deprecating the SLRUs. If the
community is okay with completely removing the extensible SLRU
mechanism, we don't have any objection to it either.
On another note, I have also attached an updated version of the last
patch-set which is applicable on the latest commits.
Sincerely,
Rishu Bagga, Amazon Web Services (AWS)