Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Christian Heimes <lists <at> cheimes.de> writes:
>> I agree with you, fsync() shouldn't be called by default. I didn't plan
>> on adding fsync() calls all over our code. However I like to suggest a
>> file.sync() method and a synced flag for files to make the job of
>> application developers easier.
>
> We already have os.fsync() and os.fdatasync(). Should the sync() (and
> datasync()?) method be added as an object-oriented convenience?
It's more than an object oriented convenience. fsync() takes a file
descriptor as argument. Therefore I assume fsync() only syncs the data
to disk that was written to the file descriptor. [*] In Python 2.x we
are using a FILE* based stream. In Python 3.x we have our own buffered
writer class.
In order to write all data to disk the FILE* stream must be flushed
first before fsync() is called:
PyFileObject *f;
if (fflush(f->f_fp) != 0) {
/* report error */
}
if (fsync(fileno(f->f_fp)) != 0) {
/* report error */
}
Christian
[*] Is my assumption correct, anybody?
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
