Re: Final(?) proposal for wal_sync_method changes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Final(?) proposal for wal_sync_method changes
Date
Msg-id 14328.1291819204@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Final(?) proposal for wal_sync_method changes  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
Responses Re: Final(?) proposal for wal_sync_method changes  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 02:07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> [ win32.h says ]
>> #define fsync(fd) _commit(fd)

>> What this means is that switching to a simple preference order
>> "fdatasync, then fsync" will result in choosing fsync on Windows (since
>> it hasn't got fdatasync), meaning _commit, meaning Windows users see
>> a behavioral change after all.

> _commit() != fsync()

Um, the macro quoted above makes them the same, no?  One of us
is confused.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dimitri Fontaine
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_execute_from_file review
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_type.typname of array types.