Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> My proposal is to remove fdatasync and open_datasync, and have have
> fsync _prefer_ fdatasync, and open_sync prefer open_datastync, but fall
> back to fsync and open_sync if the *data* version are not supported.

And this will buy us what, other than lack of flexibility?

The "data" options already are the default when available, I think
(if not, I have no objection to making them so). That does not
equate to saying we should remove access to the other options.
Your argument that they are useless only holds up in a perfect
world where there are no hardware bugs and no kernel bugs ...
and last I checked, we do not live in such a world.

regards, tom lane