Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC
Date: 2001-03-16 04:01:24
Message-ID: 18052.984715284@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> OK, but the point of adding all those configuration options was to allow
> us to figure out which was faster. If you can do the code so we no
> longer need to know the answer of which is best, why bother adding the
> config options.

How in the world did you arrive at that idea? I don't see anyone around
here but you claiming that we don't need any experimentation ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-03-16 04:06:16 Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2001-03-16 03:57:57 Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC