|From:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>|
|To:||Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>|
|Cc:||Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Loaded footgun open_datasync on Windows|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 08:43:18AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> Thanks for being interested and doing the work.
No problem. I have a sort of Windows-label stuck on me for ages, and
those random buildfarm failures are annoying with TAP tests on Windows.
> If it turns out not to break anything, would you consider backpatching?
> On the one hand it fixes a bug, on the other hand it affects all
> frontend executables...
Yeah, for this reason I would not do a backpatch. I have a very hard
time to believe that any frontend tools on Windows developed by anybody
rely on files to be opened only by a single process, still if they do
they would be surprised to see a change of behavior after a minor
update in case they rely on the concurrency limitations.
> I wonder why nobody noticed the problem in pg_test_fsync earlier.
> Is it that people running Windows care less if their storage is
|Next Message||Chris Travers||2018-09-14 08:31:25||Re: Code of Conduct plan|
|Previous Message||李海龙||2018-09-14 07:27:34||when set track_commit_timestamp on, database system abort startup|