On 2018-04-09 21:26:21 +0200, Anthony Iliopoulos wrote: > What about having buffered IO with implied fsync() atomicity via > O_SYNC?
You're kidding, right? We could also just add sleep(30)'s all over the tree, and hope that that'll solve the problem. There's a reason we don't permanently fsync everything. Namely that it'll be way too slow. Greetings, Andres Freund
