Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> While we could possibly come up with a suitable configure test to
>> determine whether posix_fadvise is actually safe to use on a given
>> system, I think we should seriously consider just reverting the patch.
>> As far as I saw, zero e
Tom Lane wrote:
> I've been digging into why buildfarm member thrush has been dumping core
> consistently during the regression tests since the posix_fadvise patch
> went in. I've confirmed that posix_fadvise() itself will SIGSEGV in a
> standalone test program, and found that this happens only if
I've been digging into why buildfarm member thrush has been dumping core
consistently during the regression tests since the posix_fadvise patch
went in. I've confirmed that posix_fadvise() itself will SIGSEGV in a
standalone test program, and found that this happens only if
_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 ..
