Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Stephen Frost
Subject Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)
Date
Msg-id 20130530125337.GR6434@tamriel.snowman.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
* Andres Freund (andres@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> But really, I am not at all concerned about some obscure values being
> returned, but about a read() not being successful..

Alright, so what do we need to do to test this?  We really just need a
short C program written up and then a bunch of folks to run it on
various architectures, right?  Gee, sounds like what the buildfarm was
made for (alright, alright, PostgreSQL isn't exactly a 'short C
program', but you get the idea).  As I recall, Andrew reworked the
buildfarm code to be more modular too..  Anyone have thoughts about how
we could run these kinds of tests with it?  Or do people think that's a
bad idea?
Thanks,
    Stephen

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)