Re: Final(?) proposal for wal_sync_method changes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, 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 14:40:04
Message-ID: 14328.1291819204@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 02:07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> [ win32.h says ]
>> #define fsync(fd) _commit(fd)

>> What this means is that switching to a simple preference order
>> "fdatasync, then fsync" will result in choosing fsync on Windows (since
>> it hasn't got fdatasync), meaning _commit, meaning Windows users see
>> a behavioral change after all.

> _commit() != fsync()

Um, the macro quoted above makes them the same, no? One of us
is confused.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2010-12-08 14:45:09 Re: pg_type.typname of array types.
Previous Message Tatsuo Ishii 2010-12-08 13:57:08 Solving sudoku using SQL