Hi, On 2022-02-01 13:27:03 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > 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.
Personally I can't keep up with all threads on -hackers all the time. Especially not long and at times very busy threads. So I agree with Stephen that it's not saying much whether / not people react to an email deep in a thread. > > 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. I think it is quite unlikely that patches of that invasiveness can be merged this release. Greetings, Andres Freund
