Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System
Date
Msg-id 005801c2c899$7d0cfd70$1a01000a@rduadunstan2
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System  ("Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>)
List pgsql-hackers
From: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>
> Most variants of Unix are known to be pretty stable.  Most variants of
> Unix are known to follow the Unix standard semantics for sync() and
> fsync().  I think we are entirely justified in doubting whether Windows
> is a suitable platform for PG, and in wanting to run tests to find out.
> Yes, we are holding Windows to a higher standard than we would for a
> Unix variant.

The patches that were released implement fsync() by a call to _commit(),
which is what I expected to see after a brief tour of the M$ support site.
Is there any reason to think this won't have the desired effect? IANAWD, but
my reading suggests these should be pretty much equivalent.

andrew



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Greg Copeland
Date:
Subject: Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System
Next
From: Greg Copeland
Date:
Subject: Re: plpython fails its regression test