Thread: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question

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.

            regards, tom lane

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