Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2023-04-14 15:21:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> +1 for that, though. (Also, the fact that these animals aren't
>> actually failing suggests that 004_io_direct.pl needs expansion.)
> It's skipped, due to lack of O_DIRECT:
> [20:50:22] t/004_io_direct.pl .............. skipped: no O_DIRECT
Hmm, I'd say that might be just luck. Whether the compiler honors weird
alignment of locals seems independent of whether the OS has O_DIRECT.
> So perhaps we don't even need a configure test, just a bit of ifdef'ery? It's
> a bit annoying structurally, because the PG*Aligned structs are defined in
> c.h, but the different ways of spelling O_DIRECT are dealt with in fd.h.
> I wonder if we should try to move those structs to fd.h as well...
I doubt they belong in c.h, so that could be plausible; except
I'm not convinced that testing O_DIRECT is sufficient.
regards, tom lane
