Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC

> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > As a general rule, if something can be a run time option, as opposed to a
> > compile time option, then it should be. At the very least you keep the
> > installation simple and allow for easier experimenting.
>
> I've been mentally working through the code, and see only one reason why
> it might be necessary to go with a compile-time choice: suppose we see
> that none of O_DSYNC, O_SYNC, O_FSYNC, [others] are defined? With the
> compile-time choice it's easy: #define USE_FSYNC_FOR_WAL, and sail on.
> If it's a GUC variable then we need a way to prevent the GUC option from
> becoming unset (which would disable the fsync() calls, leaving nothing
> to replace 'em). Doable, perhaps, but seems kind of ugly ... any
> thoughts about that?

I don't think having something a run-time option is always a good idea.
Giving people too many choices is often confusing.

I think we should just check at compile time, and choose O_* if we have
it, and if not, use fsync(). No one will ever do the proper timing
tests to know which is better except us. Also, it seems O_* should be
faster because you are fsync'ing the buffer you just wrote, so there is
no looking around for dirty buffers like fsync().

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026