Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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?
> Ah, I remember now. On Win32 our fsync is:
> #define fsync(a) _commit(a)
> I am wondering if we should call the new mode open_commit or
> open_writethrough. Our typical rule is to tie it to the API call, which
> should suggest open_commit.
fsync_writethrough, perhaps. I don't see any "open" about it.
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
