| Lists: | pgsql-hackerspgsql-hackers-win32 |
|---|
| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org, Merlin Moncure <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question |
| Date: | 2005-03-17 19:36:19 |
| Message-ID: | 26678.1111088179@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32 |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)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
| 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: | Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org, Merlin Moncure <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question |
| Date: | 2005-03-17 19:38:32 |
| Message-ID: | 200503171938.j2HJcWK19062@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32 |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)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(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