Re: posix_fadvise v22

I'll send another path with at least 1 and 3 fixed and hunt around  
again for a header file to put this guc into.

On 10 Dec 2008, at 04:22, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp > wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> Here's an update to eliminate two small bitrot conflicts.
>
> I read your patch with interest, but found some trivial bad manners.
>
> * LET_OS_MANAGE_FILESIZE is already obsoleted.
> You don't have to cope with the option.

Huh I didn't realize that. I guess the idea is  that users just  
configure a very large segment size to get the old behaviour.


>
> * Type mismatch in prefetch_pages
> A variable prefetch_pages is defined as "unsigned" or "int"
> in some places. Why don't you define it only once in a header
> and include the header in source files?

Just... Which header?


> * Assignment to prefetch_pages
> What do "+0.99" means here?
>   [assign_io_concurrency()]
>   +            prefetch_pages = new_prefetch_pages+0.99;
> You want to do as follows, right?
>   +            prefetch_pages = (int) ceil(new_prefetch_pages);

Sure