Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>,Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org,pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org,Merlin Moncure <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question
Date: 2005-03-17 19:36:19
Message-ID: 26678.1111088179@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-hackers-win32
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> ISTM Windows' idea of fsync is quite different from Unix's and therefore
>> we should name the wal_sync_method that invokes it something different
>> than fsync.  "write_through" or some such?

> Ah, I remember now.  On Win32 our fsync is:
> 	#define fsync(a)    _commit(a)
> I am wondering if we should call the new mode open_commit or
> open_writethrough.  Our typical rule is to tie it to the API call, which
> should suggest open_commit.

fsync_writethrough, perhaps.  I don't see any "open" about it.

			regards, tom lane

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-03-17 19:38:32
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-03-17 19:34:18
Subject: Re: Windows, gettext/libintl, pg_sprintf and friends

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-03-17 19:38:32
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question
Previous:From: Dann CorbitDate: 2005-03-17 19:24:24
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group