From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: pread() and pwrite()
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Thomas Munro
 <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>, Jesper Pedersen
 <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
 Oskari Saarenmaa <os@ohmu.fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
 Tobias Oberstein <tobias.oberstein@gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAEepm=02rapCpPR3ZGF2vW=SBHSdFYO_bz_f-wwWJonmA3APgw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180720081459.GC22214@saarenmaa.fi>
 <CAEepm=2qRXWM+uX26dPn6S=TAqi8FfuAZ9vG8tZW9Jo7w6YeQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7f379440-dfec-70ca-8a0d-942f1381936b@redhat.com>
 <c2f56d0a-cadd-3df1-ae48-b84dc8128c37@redhat.com>
 <CAEepm=1DZSzdBRDbXFXSiu_Hiv08f22kFmgCi7ZBRERF_=ZCPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <983a8d48-64fa-e2f7-55c4-41e20bc51ef5@redhat.com>
 <CAEepm=15aoFSr9G25T4wP_6vTKd1bPAViu5pZtrObyviMvowpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <19344.1539050134@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <89deb81f-390b-4507-9803-e4238a855520@2ndQuadrant.com>
 <20181009183704.dglhavr34dksce6a@alap3.anarazel.de>
Message-ID: <ba7e1087-81c8-c3a5-8c20-6bfaff383e2b@2ndQuadrant.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 14:50:15 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20181009183704.dglhavr34dksce6a@alap3.anarazel.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-MW
Precedence: bulk


On 10/09/2018 02:37 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-10-09 14:32:29 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>> On 10/08/2018 09:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>>>> Rebased again.  Patches that touch AC_CHECK_FUNCS are fun like that!
>>> Yeah, I've been burnt by that too recently.  It occurs to me we could make
>>> that at least a little less painful if we formatted the macro with one
>>> line per function name:
>>>
>>> AC_CHECK_FUNCS([
>>> 	cbrt
>>> 	clock_gettime
>>> 	fdatasync
>>> 	...
>>> 	wcstombs_l
>>> ])
>>>
>>> You'd still get conflicts in configure itself, of course, but that
>>> doesn't require manual work to resolve -- just re-run autoconf.
>>>
>>> 			
>>
>>
>> By and large I think it's better not to submit patches with changes to
>> configure, but to let the committer run autoconf.
>> OTOH, this will probably confuse the heck out of the cfbot patch checker.
> And make life harder for reviewers.
>
> -1 on this one.
>


Maybe I'm thinking back to the time when we used to use a bunch of old 
versions of autoconf ...

cheers

andrew


-- 
Andrew Dunstan                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services