Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint

I wrote:
> But that someplace else
> could easily be a process forked by the backend in question whose sole
> purpose is to go through the list of files generated by its parent backend
> and fsync() them. The backend can then go about its business and upon
> receipt of the SIGCHLD notify anyone that needs to be notified that the
> fsync()s have completed.

Duh, what am I thinking? Of course, the right answer is to have the
child notify anyone that needs notification that fsync()s are done. No
need for involvement of the parent (i.e., the backend in question)
unless the architecture of PG requires it somehow.

--
Kevin Brown kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com