The Linux fsync man page says:
It does not necessarily ensure that the entry in the directory
containing the file has also reached disk. For that an explicit fsync on
the file descriptor of the directory is also needed.
AFAIK, we don't care about it at the moment. The actual behaviour depends
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
The Linux fsync man page says:
It does not necessarily ensure that the entry in the directory
containing the file has also reached disk. For that an explicit fsync on
the file descriptor of the directory is also needed.
AFAIK, we don't care about it at the moment. The
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Linux [ext2] fsync man page says:
It does not necessarily ensure that the entry in the directory
containing the file has also reached disk. For that an explicit fsync on
the file descriptor of the directory is also needed.
This seems so
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Linux [ext2] fsync man page says:
It does not necessarily ensure that the entry in the directory
containing the file has also reached disk. For that an explicit fsync on
the file descriptor of the directory is also needed.
In general we expect the filesystem to take care of its own metadata.
Run ext3 in journaling mode, or something like that.
(It occurs to me that the admin guide really ought to have a few words
about recommended and non-recommended filesystems ...)
Well I am not their admin, but I don't
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Oliver Jowett wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
The Linux fsync man page says:
It does not necessarily ensure that the entry in the directory containing
the file has also reached disk. For that an explicit fsync on the file
descriptor of the directory is also needed.
AFAIK,
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Linux [ext2] fsync man page says:
It does not necessarily ensure that the entry in the directory
containing the file has also reached disk. For that an explicit fsync on
the file descriptor of the directory is
