On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 08:12:41AM +0000, Bagga, Rishu wrote:
> * 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.
>
> 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.
I think I agree with Stephen. We routinely make changes that require
updates to extensions, and I doubt anyone is terribly wild about
maintaining two SLRU systems for several years.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
