On Monday 08 February 2010 05:53:23 Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> > Andres Freund escribió:
> >> I personally think the fsync on the directory should be added to the
> >> stable branches - other opinions?
> >> If wanted I can prepare patches for that.
> > Yeah, it seems there are two patches here -- one is the addition of
> > fsync_fname() and the other is the fsync_prepare stuff.
> Andres, you want to take a crack at splitting this up?
I hope I didnt duplicate Gregs work, but I didnt hear back from him, so...
Everything <8.1 is hopeless because cp is used there... I didnt see it worth
to replace that. The patch applies cleanly for 8.1 to 8.4 and survives the
Given pg's heavy commit model I didnt see a point to split the patch for 9.0
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Scott Marlowe||Date: 2010-02-11 03:46:52|
|Subject: Re: How exactly PostgreSQL allocates memory for its needs?|
|Previous:||From: Greg Smith||Date: 2010-02-11 02:09:22|
|Subject: Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline|
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-02-11 02:47:15|
|Subject: Re: Odd cruft in .psql_history in HEAD |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-02-11 02:17:52|
|Subject: Re: [PATCH] Output configuration status after ./configure run. |