Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question

[Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>]

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.

> 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.

It occurs to me that it'd probably be a good idea if the error message
for an unsupported wal_sync_method value explicitly listed the allowed
values for the platform.  If there's no objection I'll try to make
that happen.  (I'm not sure if it's trivial or not: I think the GUC
framework is a bit restrictive about custom error messages from GUC
assign hooks...)

			regards, tom lane