On Sat, 2008-08-02 at 00:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I think it makes sense to commit this patch now, per previous > > discussions on which we have agreed to make incremental changes. > > Yeah, but at the same time there is merit in the argument that the > proposed patch hasn't actually been proven to be usable for anything. > I would be a lot happier if there were even a trivial proof-of-concept > plugin example submitted with it, just to prove that there were no > showstopper problems in the plugin design, like failure to pass > essential information or not getting the locking straight.
Plugins were my other patch. I did originally submit a version with changes, but this patch was specifically a version with *no* external behaviour changes, to form a base from which various people's ideas might be explored. > > I'm just wondering if the change of usage_count from 16 to 8 bits was > > discussed and agreed? > > Umm ... it was not, but given that we have logic in there to limit the > usage_count to 5 or so, it's hard to argue that there's a big problem. It was discussed and it was Tom's suggestion to do this. I agreed! > I confess to not having read the patch in detail --- where did the other > 8 bits go to? Keeping track of the number of hints set on a block since last write. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches