* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > After a bit of standard perusing writing a single byte to the end of the > file after the fallocate ought to make at least the reading guaranteed > to be defined. If we did seek(last_byte); write(); posix_fallocate() we > should even always have defined content. Yuck.
Alright, but would that actually be any better than just doing what glibc's posix_fallocate() does in the generic case? And, to be honest, it makes me a bit nervous to seek/write like that because it looks like the typical "create a hole" setup, which we certainly aren't intending, yet if the posix_fallocate() call disappeared, or did nothing, or this code was copied w/o it, or someone didn't understand what it did, we could end up with that. Not a fan. :( Thanks, Stephen
Description: Digital signature