Re: [HACKERS] Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC

[Alfred Perlstein]

* Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010315 11:07] wrote:
> "Mikheev, Vadim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ... I would either
> > use fsync as default or don't deal with O_SYNC at all.
> > But if O_DSYNC is defined and O_DSYNC != O_SYNC then we should
> > use O_DSYNC by default.
> 
> Hm.  We could do that reasonably painlessly as a compile-time test in
> xlog.c, but I'm not clear on how it would play out as a GUC option.
> Peter, what do you think about configuration-dependent defaults for
> GUC variables?

Sorry, what's a GUC? :)

-- 
-Alfred Perlstein - [[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]]


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly