| From: | Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, 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 19:17:24 |
| Message-ID: | 20010315111724.Z29888@fw.wintelcom.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> [010315 11:07] wrote:
> "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?
Sorry, what's a GUC? :)
--
-Alfred Perlstein - [bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net|alfred(at)freebsd(dot)org]
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lamar Owen | 2001-03-15 19:37:03 | Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-03-15 19:04:24 | Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |