Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Depending on OS features we have never depended on before is a *huge* > >> ongoing maintenance cost, and I have not seen an argument that I think > >> justifies this one. > > > I disagree. It is a localized change and seems like a win, and it uses > > a standard POSIX feature, rather than an OS-specific one. > > It's still gonna need a configure test and so on. "POSIX" does not mean > "exists everywhere". Moreover, the submitter has not even proven that > the code works (or even builds, much less does anything useful) on the > platforms it's supposedly for.
The submitter believes the C macro test is sufficient: I think we can use _POSIX_ADVISORY_INFO to test if posix_fadvise exists. Also, I added the check on whether WAL archiving is enabled, because archivers might use the caches to read the WAL segment. I assume if it follows the POSIX spec it will work on all platforms that support this feature. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us email@example.com | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match