Re: Run-time posix_fallocate failures

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Run-time posix_fallocate failures
Date: 2013-07-06 18:23:59
Message-ID: 22737.1373135039@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, 2013-07-06 at 10:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think you'd better rejigger that patch so that it falls through to the
>> old implementation if posix_fallocate() fails.

> Do you mean "fails at all" or "fails with EINVAL"?

I'd be inclined to ignore the specific error code and just do it the
hard way for any failure. Less code, and I see no particular advantage
to being pickier than that.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2013-07-06 19:25:04 Re: in-catalog Extension Scripts and Control parameters (templates?)
Previous Message Jeff Janes 2013-07-06 18:11:06 Re: planner not choosing fastest estimated plan