On December 22, 2016 6:44:22 PM GMT+01:00, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> >wrote: >> It makes more sense of you mentally separate between filename(s) and >file contents. Having to do filesystem metatata transactions for an >fsync intended to sync contents would be annoying... > >I thought that's why there's fdatasync.
Not quite IIRC: that doesn't deal with file size increase. All this would be easier if hardlinks wouldn't exist IIUC. It's basically a question whether dentry, inode or contents need to be synced. Yes, it sucks. Andres -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
