From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Safeguards against incorrect fd flags for fsync()
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 21:09:35 -0400
Message-ID: <947174.1749604175@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aEjGRrGNoLewSlRG@paquier.xyz>
References: <20191009062640.GB21379@paquier.xyz>
<68480868.5d0a0220.1e214d.68a6@mx.google.com>
<aEjGRrGNoLewSlRG@paquier.xyz>
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> We don't have a trace of O_ACCMODE in the tree, and POSIX defines it.
> I'm wondering how the buildfarm would react on that, but perhaps
> that's fine on !WIN32. It's hard to say with all the hosts there, at
> least the CI is OK.
POSIX has required O_ACCMODE in fcntl.h at least since 2008,
if I'm reading things correctly. So it's probably safe to
depend on this symbol. Still, I'd like to be closer to having
a working Hurd buildfarm member before we take a portability
risk that would only benefit Hurd.
> Another thing that may be worth considering is if we should remove
> this sanity check.
Nah.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, michael@paquier.xyz, mbanck@gmx.net, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Safeguards against incorrect fd flags for fsync()
In-Reply-To: <947174.1749604175@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox