Re: [HACKERS] TODO item

> > It seems that sync(2) blocks until data is written. So it would be ok
> > at least with Linux. I'm not sure about other platforms, though.
>
> It is incorrect to assume that sync() wait until all buffers are
> flushed on any other platform than Linux, I didn't think
> that Linux even did so but the kernel sources say yes.

Right. I have looked at Linux kernel sources and confirmed it.

> Solaris doesn't do this and niether does FreeBSD/NetBSD.

I'm not sure about Solaris since I don't have an access to its source
codes. Will look at FreeBSD kernel sources.

> I guess if you wanted to implement this for linux only then it would
> work, you ought to then also warn people that a non-dedicated db server
> could experiance different performance using this code.

I just want to have more choices other than with/without -F. With -F
looses ACID, without it implies per-page-fsync. Both choices are
painful. But switching to expensive commercial DBMSs is much more
painful at least for me.

Even if it would be usefull on Linux only and in a certain situation,
it would better than nothing IMHO (until WAL comes up).
--
Tatsuo Ishii