| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dmitry Morozovsky <marck(at)rinet(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: fsync or fdatasync |
| Date: | 2002-09-09 20:42:52 |
| Message-ID: | 13608.1031604172@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Dmitry Morozovsky <marck(at)rinet(dot)ru> writes:
> #wal_sync_method = fsync # the default varies across platforms:
> # # fsync, fdatasync, open_sync, or open_datasync
> I suppose fdatasync *is* the default on platforms where it exists. On
> *BSD it does not.
[ looks at code... ] Actually, the current algorithm for choosing the
default is "open_datasync if it exists, else fdatasync if it exists,
else fsync". There probably are platforms where this method yields a
non-optimal answer, but we need more data before fooling with it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sean Chittenden | 2002-09-09 23:43:04 | Re: fsync or fdatasync |
| Previous Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2002-09-09 17:19:09 | Re: fsync or fdatasync |