Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method
Date
Msg-id 12657.1123565080@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
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?

The "data" options already are the default when available, I think
(if not, I have no objection to making them so).  That does not
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.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method