On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > Do we really need a runtime check for that? Isn't a configure check > enough? If they *do* deploy postgresql 9.3 on something that old, > they're building from source anyway... [...] > > Could we actually turn *that* into a configure test, or will that be > too complex?
I don't see why we *couldn't* make either of those things into a configure test, but it seems more complicated than a runtime test and less accurate, so I guess I'd be in favor of doing them at runtime or not at all. Actually, the try-a-one-page-mapping-and-see-if-you-get-EINVAL test is so simple that I really can't see any reason not to insert that defense. The fork-and-check-whether-it-really-works test is probably excess paranoia until we determine whether that's really a danger anywhere. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
