From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
cc: Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net>,
        Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Safeguards against incorrect fd flags for fsync()
In-reply-to: <aEjGRrGNoLewSlRG@paquier.xyz>
References: <20191009062640.GB21379@paquier.xyz>
 <68480868.5d0a0220.1e214d.68a6@mx.google.com> <aEjGRrGNoLewSlRG@paquier.xyz>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
	message dated "Wed, 11 Jun 2025 08:56:54 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <947173.1749604175.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 21:09:35 -0400
Message-ID: <947174.1749604175@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/947174.1749604175%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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