Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> we should name the wal_sync_method that invokes it something different
>> than fsync. "write_through" or some such? We already have precedent
>> that not all wal_sync_method values are available on all platforms.
> Yes, I am thinking that too. I hesistated because it adds yet another
> sync method, and we have to document it works only on Win32, but I see
> no better solution.
It occurs to me that it'd probably be a good idea if the error message
for an unsupported wal_sync_method value explicitly listed the allowed
values for the platform. If there's no objection I'll try to make
that happen. (I'm not sure if it's trivial or not: I think the GUC
framework is a bit restrictive about custom error messages from GUC
assign hooks...)
regards, tom lane
