Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question

[Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>]

Tom Lane wrote:
> 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 ...

Yes, I am thinking that too.  I hesistated because it adds yet another
sync method, and we have to document it works only on Win32, but I see
no better solution.

I am going to let the Win32 users mostly vote on what the default should
be.

-- 
  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