Re: Updated posix fadvise patch v19 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Updated posix fadvise patch v19
Date
Msg-id 603c8f070811180907m55e41593v71243605585009a0@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Updated posix fadvise patch v19  (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
List 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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Zdenek Kotala
Date:
Subject: Re: toast by chunk-end (was Re: PG_PAGE_LAYOUT_VERSION 5 - time for change)
Next
From: Sam Mason
Date:
Subject: Re: is any reason why only one columns subselect are allowed in array()?