Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Depending on OS features we have never depended on before is a *huge*
> >> ongoing maintenance cost, and I have not seen an argument that I think
> >> justifies this one.
>
> > I disagree. It is a localized change and seems like a win, and it uses
> > a standard POSIX feature, rather than an OS-specific one.
>
> It's still gonna need a configure test and so on. "POSIX" does not mean
> "exists everywhere". Moreover, the submitter has not even proven that
> the code works (or even builds, much less does anything useful) on the
> platforms it's supposedly for.
The submitter believes the C macro test is sufficient:
I think we can use _POSIX_ADVISORY_INFO to test if posix_fadvise exists.
Also, I added the check on whether WAL archiving is enabled, because
archivers might use the caches to read the WAL segment.
I assume if it follows the POSIX spec it will work on all platforms that
support this feature.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
