Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 2:19 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I get the impression that we are going to need an actual runtime
>> test if we want to defend against this. Not entirely convinced
>> it's worth the trouble. Who, other than our deliberately rear-guard
>> buildfarm animals, is going to be building modern PG with such old
>> compilers? (And more especially to the point, on platforms new
>> enough to have working O_DIRECT?)
> I don't think that I fully understand everything under discussion
> here, but I would just like to throw in a vote for trying to make
> failures as comprehensible as we reasonably can.
I'm not hugely concerned about this yet. I think the reason for
slipping this into v16 as developer-only code is exactly that we need
to get a feeling for where the portability dragons live. When (and
if) we try to make O_DIRECT mainstream, yes we'd better be sure that
any known failure cases are reported well. But we need the data
about which those are, first.
regards, tom lane
