Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> 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