On February 15, 2019 9:13:10 AM PST, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> I suspect that's because WSL has an empty implementation of
>> sync_file_range(), i.e. it unconditionally returns ENOSYS. But as
>> configure detects it, we still emit calls for it. I guess we ought
>to
>> except ENOSYS for the cases where we do panic-on-fsync-failure?
>
>I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't be panicking for sync_file_range
>failure, period.
With some flags it's strictly required, it does"eat"errors depending on the flags. So I'm not sure I understand?
Access
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
