Re: Updated posix fadvise patch v19

From: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Postgres <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Updated posix fadvise patch v19
Date: 2008-11-18 17:07:31
Message-ID: 603c8f070811180907m55e41593v71243605585009a0@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> One thing which is bothering me is that the guc assign hook is throwing an
> error if you set effective_io_concurrency when your system's posix_fadvise is
> deemed inadequate (either unavailable or from an old version of glibc). I'm
> starting to think it shouldn't throw an error, just not set the internal
> variable and possible output a warning. We do have some GUC variables which
> throw errors if you use them and support isn't compiled in, but I'm not sure
> it's such a hot idea even for those.

I can't see why this would be a good idea. Warnings are easy to
overlook, and then you have completely different behavior without
knowing it. If I wanted a database that silently did something
completely different from what I asked it to do, I'd use... well,
let's just say products like that are available.

...Robert

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sam Mason 2008-11-18 17:09:56 Re: is any reason why only one columns subselect are allowed in array()?
Previous Message KaiGai Kohei 2008-11-18 16:42:38 Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1197)