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