Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <[email protected]> writes:
> > Making it support O_DIRECT would be possible but more complex; I don't
> > see the point unless we think we're going to have open_sync_with_odirect
> > as a seperate option.
>
> Whether it's complex or not isn't really the issue. The issue is that
> what test_fsync is testing had better match what the backend does, or
> people will be making choices based on not-comparable test results.
> I think we should have test_fsync just automatically fold in O_DIRECT
> the same way the backend does.
The problem is that O_DIRECT was not implemented in macros but rather
down in the code:
if (!XLogIsNeeded() && !am_walreceiver)
o_direct_flag = PG_O_DIRECT;
Which means if we just export the macros, we would still not have caught
this. I would like to share all the defines --- I am just saying it
isn't trivial.
--
Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
