Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
- From: "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>
- To: "Michael Paesold" <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>
- Cc: <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
- Subject: Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:16:53 -0500
- Message-id: <6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3412A7633(at)Herge(dot)rcsinc(dot)local>
> Reading your mails about the pull-the-plug tests, I see that at least with > write caching enabled, fsync is more secure on win32 than open_sync. I.e. > one should disable write caching for use with open_sync. Also open_sync > seems to perform much better. All that information would be nice to have > in > the docs. There are very little platform specific notes in the regular documentation. Tbe best sync settings for performance and safety tend to differ on various platforms. There is a win32 faq; in the current state of things win32 specific notes belongs there. I think a reasonable case could be made to move various platform specific things into the regular documentation in a special section. Merlin
- Prev by Date: Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
- Next by Date: Re: snprintf causes regression tests to fail
- Previous by thread: Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
- Next by thread: Re: [HACKERS] UNICODE/UTF-8 on win32
- Indexes: