Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> ISTM Windows' idea of fsync is quite different from Unix's and therefore
> >> we should name the wal_sync_method that invokes it something different
> >> than fsync. "write_through" or some such?
>
> > Ah, I remember now. On Win32 our fsync is:
> > #define fsync(a) _commit(a)
> > I am wondering if we should call the new mode open_commit or
> > open_writethrough. Our typical rule is to tie it to the API call, which
> > should suggest open_commit.
>
> fsync_writethrough, perhaps. I don't see any "open" about it.
Sorry, yea, go confused.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
