Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4632662E841 for ; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:49:49 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 99885-03 for ; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:49:45 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6946062E76F for ; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:49:45 -0400 (AST) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 05 Jan 2009 08:43:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO dhcp-eesp05-101-93.Finland.Sun.COM) [192.18.8.1] by mail.gmx.net (mp035) with SMTP; 05 Jan 2009 09:43:02 +0100 X-Authenticated: #495269 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/UAtUJbcfUCnOj1np6KqNDzkvOQMct1xwgcU8J1Q MCfs/VBnwZRgYL Message-ID: <4961C80C.6030307@gmx.net> Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:42:52 +0200 From: Peter Eisentraut User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gregory Stark CC: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Greg Stark , Robert Haas , Tom Lane , ITAGAKI Takahiro Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: posix_fadvise v22 References: <603c8f070901012011hca2c36flf527a5cd01695205@mail.gmail.com> <262184F8-1206-4E2C-B50F-9FF84E63C1B6@enterprisedb.com> <200901032342.19435.peter_e@gmx.net> <87iqowt3ba.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> In-Reply-To: <87iqowt3ba.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.66 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200901/221 X-Sequence-Number: 130865 Gregory Stark wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: > >> On Friday 02 January 2009 06:49:57 Greg Stark wrote: >>> The guc run-time check is checking for known-buggy versions of glibc >>> using sysconf to check what version of glibc you have. >> Could you please mention the bug number in the relevant source code comments? > > It's Debian bug# 312406 which was fixed in Debian release 2.3.5-3. So it's > probably one of these but searching for posix_fadvise doesn't find anything in > their bug tracker: The way I read this is that this was a temporary kernel/libc mismatch in a development version of Debian 3 years ago that was fixed within 2 months of being reported and was never released to the general public. So it would be on the same level as any of a million temporary breakages in Linux distributions under development. Unless there are other reports of this problem, I wouldn't bother testing or working around this at all. If people are running PostgreSQL 8.4+ on Debian unstable June 2005 with kernel 2.4, they cannot be helped.