Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: fstat vs. lseek
- From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
- To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
- Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: fstat vs. lseek
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:40:51 -0400
- Message-id: <CA+TgmoamXb9XLcGZvf=cG61+xbNhmDjzDmn4fq=u580A2hbUfw@mail.gmail.com> <text/plain>
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote: > The lseek patches just got included in Linus tree. Excellent, thanks for the update! http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git;a=commit;h=ef3d0fd27e90f67e35da516dafc1482c82939a60 So I guess this will be in Linux 3.2? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: fstat vs. lseek
- From: Andres Freund
- Re: fstat vs. lseek
- References:
- Re: fstat vs. lseek
- From: Andres Freund
- Re: fstat vs. lseek
- Prev by Date: Re: fstat vs. lseek
- Next by Date: Re: TOAST versus VACUUM, or "missing chunk number 0 for toast value" identified
- Previous by thread: Re: fstat vs. lseek
- Next by thread: Re: fstat vs. lseek
- Indexes: