On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 12:06:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 2:19 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> I get the impression that we are going to need an actual runtime > >> test if we want to defend against this. Not entirely convinced > >> it's worth the trouble. Who, other than our deliberately rear-guard > >> buildfarm animals, is going to be building modern PG with such old > >> compilers? (And more especially to the point, on platforms new > >> enough to have working O_DIRECT?) > > > I don't think that I fully understand everything under discussion > > here, but I would just like to throw in a vote for trying to make > > failures as comprehensible as we reasonably can. > > I'm not hugely concerned about this yet. I think the reason for > slipping this into v16 as developer-only code is exactly that we need > to get a feeling for where the portability dragons live.
Speaking of the developer-only status, I find the io_direct name more enticing than force_parallel_mode, which PostgreSQL renamed due to overuse from people expecting non-developer benefits. Should this have a name starting with debug_?
