On 1/25/2005 6:23 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
pgman wrote:
Not yet --- I suggested it but didn't get any yeas or nays. I don't
feel this is solely core's decision anyway ... what do the assembled
hackers think?
I am not in favor of adjusting the 8.1
Jan Wieck wrote:
No, as an 8.0.x is mean to be for minor changes/fixes/improvements
... 'addressing a patnt conflict', at least in ARC's case, is a major
change, which is why we are looking at a short dev cycle for 8.1 ...
Then we better make sure that 8.0 - 8.1 does not require dumpreload.
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jan Wieck wrote:
Then we better make sure that 8.0 - 8.1 does not require dumpreload.
There was some mention of an upgrade tool which would avoid the need for
a dump/restore - did that idea die?
No, but I don't see anyone volunteering to work on it
At 2005-02-07 12:28:34 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There was some mention of an upgrade tool which would avoid the need
for a dump/restore - did that idea die?
No, but I don't see anyone volunteering to work on it now
I like the idea of having a working pg_upgrade (independent of the
A new organization called the Software Freedom Law Center
was announced yesterday; that seems like it may be one of
the best places open-source groups could go for questions
like this ARC pending patent.
Eben Moglen (The FSF's main lawyer and Columbia Law prof),
Diane Peters (OSDL's general
Guys,
BTW, if you hadn't guessed, that comment was supposed to be off-list.
Unfortunately, I discovered a bug with KMail and list management, the hard
way ...
Sigh.Just in case anyone wants to know, KMail 1.5.1 + has a bug where, if
you have list management turned on, it sometimes sends
Andrew,
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 10:39:52AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
Thanks. As you know, I'm getting a little sick of the chicken little
act among many of the -hackers
I think this is a little bit of a mischaracterisation. Afilias is
already a customer of IBM.
BTW, if you
Marc,
And to be perfectly frank, I was mostly thinking of Marc when I said that.
Sorry, that was uncharitable. I meant that (at the time) you were panicking.
Now you have something different to panic about. How goes the server
shuffle?
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San
Josh Berkus wrote:
Guys,
BTW, if you hadn't guessed, that comment was supposed to be off-list.
Unfortunately, I discovered a bug with KMail and list management, the hard
way ...
Sigh.Just in case anyone wants to know, KMail 1.5.1 + has a bug where, if
you have list management turned on, it
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Josh Berkus wrote:
Now you have something different to panic about. How goes the server
shuffle?
alot smoother today then it went yesterday ... and faster ... but, then
again, *most* clients use 256MB of storage, so moving their VM around
takes no time ... svr1 is @ ~13G
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Josh Berkus wrote:
Marc,
And to be perfectly frank, I was mostly thinking of Marc when I said that.
Sorry, that was uncharitable. I meant that (at the time) you were panicking.
Wait, I've not panic'd about all of this at any point ... the only
'chicken little' comment I made
Marc,
alot smoother today then it went yesterday ... and faster ... but, then
again, *most* clients use 256MB of storage, so moving their VM around
takes no time ... svr1 is @ ~13G :) Something like 3G is justin's mailbox
alone ... and i miscalculated how long it would take to move it back
On Friday 28 January 2005 12:36, Josh Berkus wrote:
Robert,
Read the law... willful vs. unknown infringement are two different
things.
We're not infringing anything, yet. That's a *pending* patent.
*sigh* Thats understood. But you were using the counter-argument that we
might be
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not mischarecterizing, I just feel that putting out an lru based 8.0.x
release is such a bad idea that I'd rather do (1) than gamble on (2).
I don't understand why you think it's such a bad idea. We do have the
problem of getting adequate testing,
On Saturday 29 January 2005 11:33, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not mischarecterizing, I just feel that putting out an lru based
8.0.x release is such a bad idea that I'd rather do (1) than gamble on
(2).
I don't understand why you think it's such a bad idea.
On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 12:51, Josh Berkus wrote:
We don't *have* to do anything when the patent is granted. When we *have*
to
do something is when IBM sends a cease-and-desist letter to a PostgreSQL
user. Not before.
With that attitude we don't have to do anything even then. We have a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Read the law... willful vs. unknown infringement are two
different things.
You can't infringe on a non-existent patent.
FWIW I've really only been advocating that we don't do the change in a
patch branch, which I'm afraid the do nothing
Greg Sabino Mullane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Spending time on this is silly, IMO, unless there is a technical reason
why the feature should be replaced.
Well, people can validly have different opinions on how critical it is
to dodge the upcoming patent (and surely whether you live in the US or
On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 02:09, Neil Conway wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
This may be the right path to go for
8.0.* ... but we must NOT suppose that we can just push it out without
a full beta test cycle.
Yeah, I think a beta period would be a good idea (not nearly as long as
the 8.0 beta
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think it is worth breaking the expectation that only minor
changes get committed in revision level releases even with a beta.
Ordinarily I would agree with you, but what happens to someone who is
still running 8.0.* when IBM's patent gets issued?
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
What's really being debated here is how we can have adequate confidence
in a change that is admittedly larger than we like to back-patch. It's
not an unprecedented thing mind you; we have back-patched some fairly
large bug fixes in the past. But it's a bit
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How hard would it be to do as several have suggested already ... abstract
out the ARC/LRU stuff into an API?
That was basically my objection to Neil's draft patch: it didn't make
any effort to abstract out a cleaner API. I'll try to look into this
Marc, Tom, Robert, Bruce, et al:
Bruce is advocating waiting until the Patent has been Granted, instead of
doing something about it now, when we know the patent is going through the
system (and will likely get granted) ... a reactive vs proactive
response to the problem.
No, we're reactive
Josh,
Bruce is advocating waiting until the Patent has been Granted, instead of
doing something about it now, when we know the patent is going through
the system (and will likely get granted) ... a reactive vs proactive
response to the problem.
Very well written Josh.
Thanks. As you
Josh Berkus josh@agliodbs.com writes:
No, we're reactive regardless. Proactive would have been to investigate the
ARC paper when it was published for outstanding patent applications, and
again before feature freeze. Or even to have considered the fact that when
an IBM person publishes
On Thursday 27 January 2005 10:27, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think it is worth breaking the expectation that only minor
changes get committed in revision level releases even with a beta.
Ordinarily I would agree with you, but what happens to someone who
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Robert Treat wrote:
On Thursday 27 January 2005 20:47, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday 27 January 2005 10:27, Tom Lane wrote:
Ordinarily I would agree with you, but what happens to someone who is
still running 8.0.* when IBM's patent gets
Neil Conway wrote:
IMHO, the patent issue is *not* a potential problem for a lot of people,
it *is* a problem -- it makes people uncomfortable to be deploying
software that they know might cause them legal headaches down the line. It
also makes life difficult for people distributing commercial
Ühel kenal päeval (kolmapäev, 26. jaanuar 2005, 15:38+1100), kirjutas
Neil Conway:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
So if we have to address it we call it 8.0.7 or something. My point is
that we don't need to address it until we actually find out the patent
is being enforced against someone, and that
I live in Europe, and right now, the patent, if granted, would not
have any effect on me. Even if Europe will have patents on software, I
doubt that this ARC algorithm will be patentable in Europe.
Is it possible to have an abstraction api where we can plug different
algorithms.
With two
Ühel kenal päeval (teisipäev, 25. jaanuar 2005, 21:10-0400), kirjutas
Marc G. Fournier:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
So if we have to address it we call it 8.0.7 or something. My point is
that we don't need to address it until we actually find out the patent
is being enforced
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, you've suggested that I should try and reduce the API churn caused
by the patch. As I said on -patches, I don't really see this as an issue
if we just apply the patch to REL8_0_STABLE.
If we do that then the patch will go out with essentially no
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Hannu Krosing wrote:
Ühel kenal päeval (teisipäev, 25. jaanuar 2005, 21:10-0400), kirjutas
Marc G. Fournier:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
So if we have to address it we call it 8.0.7 or something. My point is
that we don't need to address it until we actually
Hello all,
With this paten issue on hand, can't we come up with a pluggable API
and pluggable cache-replacement modules so that folks who care not for US
patents can simply download and load in the PgARC module, and those who
can't, just load the NeilLRU, or a BetterThanARCCacheReplacement
module
Hello all,
As I got the next digest of pg hackers, I see that Jean-Gerard Pailloncy
has already advocated this idea. In no means I meant to copy :) as I am
on the digest mode. However, I think it's a good path to go anyway as two
people at least came up with it. Please do not disregard this idea.
Bruce Momjian wrote:
pgman wrote:
...
What I would like to do is to pledge that we will put out an 8.0.X to
address any patent conflict experienced by our users. This would
include ARC or anything else. This way we don't focus just on ARC but
have a plan for any patent issues that appear, and we
pgman wrote:
Not yet --- I suggested it but didn't get any yeas or nays. I don't
feel this is solely core's decision anyway ... what do the assembled
hackers think?
I am not in favor of adjusting the 8.1 release based solely on this
patent issue. I think the probability of the patent
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
pgman wrote:
Not yet --- I suggested it but didn't get any yeas or nays. I don't
feel this is solely core's decision anyway ... what do the assembled
hackers think?
I am not in favor of adjusting the 8.1 release based solely on this
patent issue. I think
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
One problem in working around the GIF format patent is that you had to
create a file that was readable by many of the existing GIF readers.
With PostgreSQL, only we read our own data files so we can more easily
make adjustments to avoid patents.
I did not see
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
One problem in working around the GIF format patent is that you had to
create a file that was readable by many of the existing GIF readers.
With PostgreSQL, only we read our own data files so we can more easily
make adjustments to
Bruce Momjian wrote:
So if we have to address it we call it 8.0.7 or something. My point is
that we don't need to address it until we actually find out the patent
is being enforced against someone, and that possibility is quite unlikely.
IMHO, the patent issue is *not* a potential problem for a
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've posted a patch to -patches that replaces ARC with LRU. The patch is
stable -- I'll post some code cleanup for it tomorrow, but I've yet to
find any bugs despite a fair bit of testing. The patch also reverts the
code to being quite close to 7.4,
Tom Lane wrote:
I've already pointed out a couple reasons why I don't have any
confidence in its correctness.
Well, you've suggested that I should try and reduce the API churn caused
by the patch. As I said on -patches, I don't really see this as an issue
if we just apply the patch to
43 matches
Mail list logo
