"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would testing in the WAL directory be sufficient? Or at least better
> than nothing? Of course we could test in the database directories as
> well, but you never know if stuff's been symlinked elsewhere... err, we
> can test for that, no?
>
> In any case, it seems like it'd be good to try to test and throw a
> warning if the drive appears to be caching or if we think the test might
> not cover everything (ie symlinks in the data directory).
I think it would make more sense to write the test as a separate
utility program--then the sysadmin can check the disks he cares
about. I don't personally see the need to burden the backend with
this.
-Doug
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
