Re: [PATCH] Revert default wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux 2.6.33+

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert default wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux 2.6.33+
Date: 2010-12-07 01:38:14
Message-ID: 5948.1291685894@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:
> Making it support O_DIRECT would be possible but more complex; I don't
> see the point unless we think we're going to have open_sync_with_odirect
> as a seperate option.

Whether it's complex or not isn't really the issue. The issue is that
what test_fsync is testing had better match what the backend does, or
people will be making choices based on not-comparable test results.
I think we should have test_fsync just automatically fold in O_DIRECT
the same way the backend does.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2010-12-07 01:59:53 Re: [PATCH] Revert default wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux 2.6.33+
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-12-07 01:34:33 Re: We really ought to do something about O_DIRECT and data=journalled on ext4