On February 15, 2019 9:13:10 AM PST, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Andres Freund <andres@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> I suspect that's because WSL has an empty implementation of >> sync_file_range(), i.e. it unconditionally returns ENOSYS. But as >> configure detects it, we still emit calls for it. I guess we ought >to >> except ENOSYS for the cases where we do panic-on-fsync-failure? > >I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't be panicking for sync_file_range >failure, period. With some flags it's strictly required, it does"eat"errors depending on the flags. So I'm not sure I understand? Access -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
