Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> 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.
> 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. It occurs to me that it'd probably be a good idea if the error message for an unsupported wal_sync_method value explicitly listed the allowed values for the platform. If there's no objection I'll try to make that happen. (I'm not sure if it's trivial or not: I think the GUC framework is a bit restrictive about custom error messages from GUC assign hooks...) regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match