On 2016-01-22 21:32:29 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Group shot with 3), 4) and 5). Well, there is no data loss here,
> putting me in the direction of considering this addition of an fsync
> as an optimization and not a bug.
I think this is an extremely weak argument. The reasoning when exactly a
loss of file is acceptable is complicated. In many cases adding an
additional fsync won't add measurable cost, given the frequency of
operations and/or the cost of surrounding operations.
Now, if you can make an argument why something is potentially impacting
performance *and* definitely not required: OK, then we can discuss
that.
Andres
