Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > However, I do prefer this patch and let Win32 have the same write cache > > issues as Unix, for consistency. > > I agree that the open flag is more nearly O_DSYNC than O_SYNC. > > 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? We already have precedent > that not all wal_sync_method values are available on all platforms. > > I'm not taking a position on which the default should be ...
Yes, I am thinking that too. I hesistated because it adds yet another sync method, and we have to document it works only on Win32, but I see no better solution. I am going to let the Win32 users mostly vote on what the default should be. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
