On 2017-06-15 19:44:43 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Understood, but now you are promoting a feature with an admittedly-poor
> API, duplication of an OS feature, and perhaps an invasive change to the
> code.
*Perhaps* an invasive change to the code? To me it's pretty evident
that this'll be a pretty costly feature from that angle. We've quite a
few places that manipulate on-disk files, and they'll all have to be
manipulated. Several of those are essentially critical sections, adding
memory allocations to them wouldn't be good, so we'll need
pre-allocation APIs.
I've only skimmed the discussion, but based on that I'm very surprised
how few concerns about this feature's complexity / maintainability
impact have been raised.
- Andres
