Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> While we could possibly come up with a suitable configure test to
>> determine whether posix_fadvise is actually safe to use on a given
>> system, I think we should seriously consider just reverting the patch.
>> As far as I saw, zero evidence was given that it actually does anything
>> measurable. Without a benchmark to prove that it's worth spending more
>> time on, I'm disinclined to trouble over it.
> Agreed. How about if we just #ifdef NOT_USED the code and mention the
> problem in a comment.
Works for me; I'll write something and commit it. We can leave the
is-posix_fadvise-declared configure test in place, at least for now ...
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
