* Peter Eisentraut (pete...@gmx.net) wrote: > On 5/30/13 7:13 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > Why? The spec doesn't specify that case and that very well allows other > > behaviour. Glibc sure does behave sensibly and zeroes the data > > (sysdeps/posix/posix_fallocate64.c for the generic implementation) and > > so does linux' fallocate() syscall, but that doesn't say much about > > other implementations. > > glibc actually only writes one byte to every file system block, to make > sure the block is allocated. It doesn't actually zero every byte.
That goes back to the 'sane implementation' question.. Is there a case where that would actually be different from writing zeros for the entire block..? Is there some OS that gives you random data for the 'hole' when you write a byte, seek to the start of the next block and then write another byte? That actually *would* be against what's documented and required by spec, no? Thanks, Stephen
Description: Digital signature