From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: posix_fadvise versus old kernels |
Date: | 2006-06-27 18:51:12 |
Message-ID: | 26472.1151434272@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> 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 evidence was given that it actually does anything
>> measurable. Without a benchmark to prove that it's worth spending more
>> time on, I'm disinclined to trouble over it.
> Agreed. How about if we just #ifdef NOT_USED the code and mention the
> problem in a comment.
Works for me; I'll write something and commit it. We can leave the
is-posix_fadvise-declared configure test in place, at least for now ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Woodward | 2006-06-27 19:02:13 | Re: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32? |
Previous Message | Mark Woodward | 2006-06-27 18:49:58 | Re: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32? |