Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > My proposal is to remove fdatasync and open_datasync, and have have > > fsync _prefer_ fdatasync, and open_sync prefer open_datastync, but fall > > back to fsync and open_sync if the *data* version are not supported. > > And this will buy us what, other than lack of flexibility?
Clarity in testing options. > The "data" options already are the default when available, I think > (if not, I have no objection to making them so). That does not They are. > equate to saying we should remove access to the other options. > Your argument that they are useless only holds up in a perfect > world where there are no hardware bugs and no kernel bugs ... > and last I checked, we do not live in such a world. Is it useful to have the option of using non-*data* options when *data* options are available? I have never heard of anyone wanting to do that, nor do I imagine anyone doing that. Is there a real use case? -- 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 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
