On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 9:24 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> No change yet, just posting a rebase to keep cfbot happy.
>
>
Hi, Thomas
I think that the proposed feature is pretty cool not only because it fixes
some old issues with lseek() performance and reliability, but also because
it opens the door t
No change yet, just posting a rebase to keep cfbot happy.
One thing I'm wondering about is whether it'd be possible, and if so,
a good idea, to make a kind of tiny reusable cache replacement
algorithm, something modern, that can be used to kill several birds
with one stone (SLRUs, this object pool
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 2:39 AM David Steele wrote:
> On 1/18/21 10:42 PM, 陈佳昕(步真) wrote:
> > I want to share a patch with you, I change the replacement algorithm
> > from fifo to a simple lru.
>
> What do you think of this change?
Ok, if I'm reading this right, it changes the replacement algorith
Hi Thomas,
On 1/18/21 10:42 PM, 陈佳昕(步真) wrote:
I want to share a patch with you, I change the replacement algorithm
from fifo to a simple lru.
What do you think of this change?
Also, your patch set from [1] no longer applies (and of course this
latest patch is confusing the tester as well).
Hi Thomas
I want to share a patch with you, I change the replacement algorithm from fifo
to a simple lru.
Buzhen
0001-update-fifo-to-lru-to-sweep-a-valid-cache.patch
Description: Binary data
Hi Thomas:
I studied your patch these days and found there might be a problem.
When execute 'drop database', the smgr shared pool will not be removed because
of no call 'smgr_drop_sr'. Function 'dropdb' in dbcommands.c remove the buffer
from bufferpool and unlink the real files by 'rmtree', It d
