| From: | Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(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 04:49:57 |
| Message-ID: | 262184F8-1206-4E2C-B50F-9FF84E63C1B6@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
The guc run-time check is checking for known-buggy versions of glibc
using sysconf to check what version of glibc you have.
--
Greg
On 1 Jan 2009, at 23:11, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Now that there's an actual run-time sysconf check for the buggy
>> glibc called
>> by the guc function we arguably don't need the autoconf check_run
>> check
>> anymore anyways.
>
> Isn't that the check I just removed for you, or are you talking about
> some other check that can also be removed?
>
> ...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-01-02 05:12:50 | Re: posix_fadvise v22 |
| Previous Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2009-01-02 04:49:55 | Re: Significantly larger toast tables on 8.4? |