Re: Final(?) proposal for wal_sync_method changes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Final(?) proposal for wal_sync_method changes
Date: 2010-12-07 23:58:44
Message-ID: 1358.1291766324@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> I am unclear as to the reason why there is a test for
>> HAVE_FSYNC_WRITETHROUGH_ONLY in pg_fsync(). Perhaps that is also
>> leftover from a previous vision of how this all works? Or does an
>> fsync() call actually fail on Windows?

> No, fsync responds fine. It just don't actually sync to disk.

Right, which is also an accurate description of its behavior on OS X,
as well as Linux (if you didn't change hdparm settings). So the real
question here is what's the point of treating Windows differently.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chris Browne 2010-12-08 00:00:47 Re: Final(?) proposal for wal_sync_method changes
Previous Message Christophe Pettus 2010-12-07 23:53:31 Re: Final(?) proposal for wal_sync_method changes