Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2017-11-17 11:23:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Or maybe we should revert 11e264517. It doesn't seem to be buying
>> much to make up for the loss of flexibility.
> There's a bunch of work adding new functionality to buffile.c
> pending. And having code paths that have been dead for 10+ years around
> and maintaining them in working order doesn't seem like a good use of
> time.
OK, if there's active work going on in the area, that's a good reason
to simplify. But let's get rid of all vestiges of the old non-temp
semantics.
regards, tom lane