Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: posix_fadvise v22

From: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Greg Stark" <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "ITAGAKI Takahiro" <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Postgres <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: posix_fadvise v22
Date: 2009-01-02 05:12:50
Message-ID: 603c8f070901012112s3994b32cy217054db133383ad@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Sorry for top-posting -- phone mail client sucks.
>
> I thought the autoconf ac_run_check was the test that people were
> questioning. That calls posix_fadvise to see if it crashes at configure
> time.

Yes, that's what I removed.

> The guc run-time check is checking for known-buggy versions of glibc using
> sysconf to check what version of glibc you have.

Right - that check is still in my updated patch.

I think the confusion may stem from the fact that Tom and I used the
word "runtime" to refer to the ac_run_check thing, because it is
checking something about the runtime environment (namely, whether
posix_fadvise works or not) at configure-time.

In any event, it seems as though we are all on the same page.

...Robert

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alex HunsakerDate: 2009-01-02 05:44:49
Subject: Re: Significantly larger toast tables on 8.4?
Previous:From: Greg StarkDate: 2009-01-02 04:49:57
Subject: Re: posix_fadvise v22

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group