Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > My proposal is to remove fdatasync and open_datasync, and have have
> > fsync _prefer_ fdatasync, and open_sync prefer open_datastync, but fall
> > back to fsync and open_sync if the *data* version are not supported.
>
> And this will buy us what, other than lack of flexibility?

Clarity in testing options.

> The "data" options already are the default when available, I think
> (if not, I have no objection to making them so). That does not

They are.

> equate to saying we should remove access to the other options.
> Your argument that they are useless only holds up in a perfect
> world where there are no hardware bugs and no kernel bugs ...
> and last I checked, we do not live in such a world.

Is it useful to have the option of using non-*data* options when *data*
options are available? I have never heard of anyone wanting to do that,
nor do I imagine anyone doing that. Is there a real use case?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073