Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
- From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
- To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(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 14:38:32 -0500 (EST)
- Message-id: <200503171938(dot)j2HJcWK19062(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Tom Lane wrote: > 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. Sorry, yea, go confused. -- 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
- References:
- Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
- From: Tom Lane
- 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] Changing the default wal_sync_method to open_sync for Win32?
- Indexes: