Re: Vacuum thoughts

Neil Conway wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-10-27 at 15:31, Jan Wieck wrote:
> > Well, "partial solution" isn't quite what I would call it, and it surely 
> > needs integration with sequential scans. I really do expect the whole 
> > hack to fall apart if some concurrent seqscans are going on
> 
> I'd rather see us implement a buffer replacement policy that considers
> both frequency + recency (unlike LRU, which considers only recency).
> Ideally, that would work "automagically". I'm hoping to get a chance to
> implement ARC[1] during the 7.5 cycle.

Someone just started working on it this week.  He emailed Jan and I.  He
hopes to have a patch in a few days.  I will make sure he posts to
hackers/patches.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073