Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
- From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
- Cc: Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org, Merlin Moncure <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>
- Subject: Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
- Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:41:00 -0500
- Message-id: <26109(dot)1111084860(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes: > However, I do prefer this patch and let Win32 have the same write cache > issues as Unix, for consistency. I agree that the open flag is more nearly O_DSYNC than O_SYNC. ISTM Windows' idea of fsync is quite different from Unix's and therefore we should name the wal_sync_method that invokes it something different than fsync. "write_through" or some such? We already have precedent that not all wal_sync_method values are available on all platforms. I'm not taking a position on which the default should be ... regards, tom lane
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
- From: Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
- References:
- Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
- From: Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
- Prev by Date: Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
- Next by Date: Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default wal_sync_method to open_sync for
- Previous by thread: Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
- Next by thread: Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
- Indexes: