Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fw(at)deneb(dot)enyo(dot)de>, shridhar(at)frodo(dot)hserus(dot)net, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint
Date: 2004-02-16 15:44:16
Message-ID: 200402161544.i1GFiGV22315@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: Postg토토 꽁 머니SQL pgsql-hackers-win32

Tom Lane wrote:
> The best idea I've heard so far is the one about sync() followed by
> a bunch of fsync()s. That seems to be correct, efficient, and dependent
> only on very-long-established Unix semantics.

Agreed.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-02-16 15:48:11 Re: [HACKERS] dollar quoting
Previous Message Mark Gibson 2004-02-16 10:50:38 Re: dblink - custom datatypes NOW work :)

Browse pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-02-17 03:47:44 Re: Updated win32 readdir patch
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-02-15 16:26:53 Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint