Re: fsync or fdatasync

From: Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org>
To: Ragnar Kj?rstad <postgres(at)ragnark(dot)vestdata(dot)no>
Cc: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: fsync or fdatasync
Date: 2002-09-10 00:33:18
Message-ID: 20020910003318.GO26147@ninja1.internal
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

> > > No, fsync() is not a no-op on linux. Unless the filesystem is
> > > mounted with o_sync, I suppose - then everything is written at
> > > write() so fsync() is not needed. But generally, it does sync.
> >
> > Hrm, alright. From what I've figured out, about ~6wk ago fsync()
> > was added to linux to have it actually fsync()... mind you someone
> > quickly turned around and created a new patchset that ripped the
> > functionality out and added it to an extreme linux distro.
> > ::shrug:: <opinion>Linux is out of control.</opinion> -sc
>
> "6wk"?
>
> Linux has had fsync for as long as I can remember.
>
> Maybe you have it confused with fsync() over NFS? The NFSv2
> implementation on linux used to have "async" flag for nfs as default
> - making it non NFS-compliant without reconfiguration.

The fsync() call has existed, but in the kernel it didn't actually do
anything is what I've been told. -sc

--
Sean Chittenden

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-09-10 01:47:48 Re: question about WAL.
Previous Message Ragnar Kjørstad 2002-09-10 00:28:20 Re: fsync or fdatasync