On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 01:07:36PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Well, I sent an email a week ago asking if people want to advance this
> feature forward, and so far you are the only person to reply, which I
> think means there isn't enough interest in this feature to advance it.
>
> This confuses me. Clearly there’s plenty of interest, but asking on hackers in
> a deep old sub thread isn’t a terribly good way to judge that. Yet even when
> there is an active positive response, you argue that there isn’t enough.
Uh, I have been lead down the path of disinterest/confusion on this
feature enough that I am looking for positive feedback on every new step
so I don't get stuck out in front with insufficient support. Yes, only
one person replying is enough for me to say there isn't interest. I
guess I now have two. My email was short and ended with a question so I
thought the people interested in the steps I suggested would give some
kind of feedback --- I certainly try to reply to all emails on this
topic.
> In general, I agree that the items you laid out are what the next steps are.
> There are patches for some of those items already too and some of them, such as
> consolidating the temporary file access, are beneficial even without the
> potential to use them for encryption.
Great. I can update my patch for July consideration.
> Instead of again asking if people want this feature (many, many, many do), I’d
> encourage Antonin to start a new thread with the patch to do the temporary file
> access consolidation which then provides a buffered access and reduces the
> number of syscalls and work towards getting that committed, ideally as part of
> this release.
Yes, agreed.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.