Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 23:17 +1100, Neil Conway wrote:
> (snippage)
>>For 8.0.x, I wonder
>>if it would be better to just replace ARC with LRU.
>>
>> Sequential scans will still flood
>>the cache, but I don't view that as an enormous problem.
>
> Agree with everything apart from the idea that seq scan flooding isn't
> an issue. I definitely think it is.
>
Is it feasible to consider LRU + a free-behind or seqscan hint type of
replacement policy?
regards
Mark
