On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On Monday 08 February 2010 05:53:23 Robert Haas wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> >> <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: >> > Andres Freund escribió: >> >> I personally think the fsync on the directory should be added to the >> >> stable branches - other opinions? >> >> If wanted I can prepare patches for that. >> > >> > Yeah, it seems there are two patches here -- one is the addition of >> > fsync_fname() and the other is the fsync_prepare stuff. >> >> Andres, you want to take a crack at splitting this up? > I hope I didnt duplicate Gregs work, but I didnt hear back from him, so... > > Everything <8.1 is hopeless because cp is used there... I didnt see it worth > to replace that. The patch applies cleanly for 8.1 to 8.4 and survives the > regression tests > > Given pg's heavy commit model I didnt see a point to split the patch for 9.0 > as well...
I'd probably argue for committing this patch to both HEAD and the back-branches, and doing a second commit with the remaining stuff for HEAD only, but I don't care very much. Greg Stark, have you managed to get your access issues sorted out? If you like, I can do the actual commit on this one. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
