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 <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.