Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> 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
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (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

Reply via email to