Adriaan Joubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > fdatasync() is available on Tru64 and according to the man-page behaves > as Tom expects. So it should be a win for us. Careful ... HPUX's man page also claims that fdatasync does something useful, but it doesn't. I'd recommend an experiment. Does today's snapshot run any faster for you (without -F) than before? regards, tom lane
- Re: [HACKERS] WAL and commit_delay Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] WAL and commit_delay Larry Rosenman
- Re: [HACKERS] WAL and commit_delay Tom Lane
- [HACKERS] Re: WAL and commit_delay Brent Verner
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: WAL and commit_delay Nathan Myers
- [HACKERS] Re: Re: WAL and commit_delay Brent Verner
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: WAL and commit_delay Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: WAL and commit_delay Nathan Myers
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: WAL and commit_delay Tom Lane
- [HACKERS] Re: WAL and commit_delay Adriaan Joubert
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: WAL and commit_delay Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: WAL and commit_delay Larry Rosenman
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: WAL and commit_delay Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: WAL and commit_delay Nathan Myers
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: WAL and commit_delay Jan Wieck
- Re: [HACKERS] WAL and commit_delay Nathan Myers
- Re: [HACKERS] WAL and commit_delay Jerome Vouillon
- Re: [HACKERS] WAL and commit_delay Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] WAL and commit_delay Matthew Kirkwood
- Re: [HACKERS] WAL and commit_delay Matthew Kirkwood
- Re: [HACKERS] WAL and commit_delay Tom Lane