Re: Another documentation issue

Tom,

On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 1:40 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Igor Korot <ikorot01@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 1:28 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> If we do anything about this, I'd just say "systems that have
> >> posix_fadvise()".  If we write something more specific it's likely to
> >> become obsolete, and it doesn't seem to me that it's hard for someone
> >> to research "does my box have posix_fadvise()?
>
> > Imagine a person that wants to write a program which will cover creating
> > the table space.
> > Such person needs to cover the appropriate fields with possible values.
> > Is there a #define such person should check to cover the appropriate values?
>
> HAVE_POSIX_FADVISE.  Seems to me it'd be way easier to find that
> from documentation that mentions posix_fadvise than from documentation
> that says "it works on systems X, Y, Z".

Most of the time the client and server are located on different machines.
So there is no way to identify what server is supporting.

How do you handle sch situation from the client POV?

Thank you.

>
>                         regards, tom lane