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 14:36:19 -0500
- Message-id: <26678(dot)1111088179(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> 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? > Ah, I remember now. On Win32 our fsync is: > #define fsync(a) _commit(a) > I am wondering if we should call the new mode open_commit or > open_writethrough. Our typical rule is to tie it to the API call, which > should suggest open_commit. fsync_writethrough, perhaps. I don't see any "open" about it. regards, tom lane
- Follow-Ups:
- 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] win32 performance - fsync question
- Previous by thread: Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
- Next by thread: Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
- Indexes: