| 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$1a01000a@rduadunstan2 |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
>
> Most variants of Unix are known to be pretty stable. Most variants of
> Unix are known to follow the Unix standard semantics for sync() and
> fsync(). I think we are entirely justified in doubting whether Windows
> is a suitable platform for PG, and in wanting to run tests to find out.
> Yes, we are holding Windows to a higher standard than we would for a
> Unix variant.
The patches that were released implement fsync() by a call to _commit(),
which is what I expected to see after a brief tour of the M$ 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
| 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 |