Re: AW: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Lockhart
Subject Re: AW: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC
Date
Msg-id 3AB22D37.8B46E06C@alumni.caltech.edu
Whole thread Raw
In response to AW: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC  (Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>)
Responses Re: Re: AW: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC  (Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org>)
Re: AW: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> > Okay ... we can fall back to O_FSYNC if we don't see either of the
> > others.  No problem.  Any other weird cases out there?  I think Andreas
> > might've muttered something about AIX but I'm not sure now.
> You can safely use O_DSYNC on AIX, the only special on AIX is,
> that it does not make a speed difference to O_SYNC. This is imho
> because the jfs only needs one sync write to the jfs journal for meta info
> in eighter case (so that nobody misunderstands: both perform excellent).

Hmm. Does everyone run jfs on AIX, or are there other file systems
available? The same issue should be raised for Linux (at least): have we
tried test cases with both journaling and non-journaling file systems?
Perhaps the flag choice would be markedly different for the different
options?
                    - Thomas


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB
Date:
Subject: AW: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC
Next
From: Doug McNaught
Date:
Subject: ["Stephen C. Tweedie" ] Re: O_DSYNC flag for open