Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System

From: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System
Date: 2003-01-30 19:55:02
Message-ID: 005801c2c899$7d0cfd70$1a01000a@rduadunstan2
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


From: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
>
> Most variants of Unix are known to be pretty stable. Most variants of
> Unix are known to follow the Unix standard semantics for sync() and
> fsync(). I think we are entirely justified in doubting whether Windows
> is a suitable platform for PG, and in wanting to run tests to find out.
> Yes, we are holding Windows to a higher standard than we would for a
> Unix variant.

The patches that were released implement fsync() by a call to _commit(),
which is what I expected to see after a brief tour of the M$ support site.
Is there any reason to think this won't have the desired effect? IANAWD, but
my reading suggests these should be pretty much equivalent.

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Page 2003-01-30 19:56:30 Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System
Previous Message Lamar Owen 2003-01-30 19:48:50 Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System