Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC
Date: 2001-03-15 19:04:24
Message-ID: 14658.984683064@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> writes:
> ... I would either
> use fsync as default or don't deal with O_SYNC at all.
> But if O_DSYNC is defined and O_DSYNC != O_SYNC then we should
> use O_DSYNC by default.

Hm. We could do that reasonably painlessly as a compile-time test in
xlog.c, but I'm not clear on how it would play out as a GUC option.
Peter, what do you think about configuration-dependent defaults for
GUC variables?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alfred Perlstein 2001-03-15 19:17:24 Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC
Previous Message Mikheev, Vadim 2001-03-15 18:53:36 RE: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC