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: 2010-12-08 00:13:34
Message-ID: 1623.1291767214@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:
>> 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.

> So, sounds like we should continue treating fsync_writethrough the same
> as we have been, and maybe add a doc patch covering some of the above?

Yeah, this patch is shaping up to be about five lines of code change
and a hundred of docs ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2010-12-08 00:32:19 Re: Final(?) proposal for wal_sync_method changes
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2010-12-08 00:03:49 Re: Final(?) proposal for wal_sync_method changes