Re: [HACKERS] Update on my 6.4.2 progress - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Update on my 6.4.2 progress
Date
Msg-id 13130.929920959@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Update on my 6.4.2 progress  (Wayne Piekarski <wayne@senet.com.au>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Update on my 6.4.2 progress
List pgsql-hackers
Wayne Piekarski <wayne@senet.com.au> writes:
> I already have the -o -F switch in the startup file (which I believe is
> working) but I'm under the impression from what I read that there are two
> fsync's - one you can switch off, and one which is fixed into the code
> and possibly can't be removed?

No.  I've looked.

Actually there is an un-disablable fsync() on the error file in elog.c,
but it's not invoked under ordinary scenarios as far as I can tell,
and it shouldn't be a performance bottleneck anyway.  *All* the ordinary
uses of fsync go through pg_fsync.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Meskes
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] BSD vs. GPL
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Status report: subselect + grouping problems