Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm ... or at least more or less fixed. Seems like there's no provision
>> to close and reopen the file if enableFsync changes. Not sure if that's
>> worth worrying about.
> We didn't have that before either, did we?
No, so I think it's a pre-existing bug.
> We close it when the sync bit
> changes, but not just if we change say between fsync() and fdatasync().
> Is there any actual reason we'd want to close it?
The point is that if you turn the fsync GUC on or off while using a wal
sync mode that requires supplying an option flag to open(), then really
you ought to close the WAL file and re-open it with the new correct
option flags. The fact that we're not doing that implies that the
effects of a change in fsync might not fully take effect until the next
WAL segment is started. Whether this is worth fixing isn't real clear.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
