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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers