On 12/06/2010 08:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Josh Berkus<j...@agliodbs.com> writes:
Making it support O_DIRECT would be possible but more complex; I don't
see the point unless we think we're going to have open_sync_with_odirect
as a seperate option.
Whether it's complex or not isn't really the issue. The issue is that
what test_fsync is testing had better match what the backend does, or
people will be making choices based on not-comparable test results.
I think we should have test_fsync just automatically fold in O_DIRECT
the same way the backend does.
Indeed. We were quite confused for a while when we were dealing with
this about a week ago, and my handwritten test program failed as
expected but test_fsync didn't. Anything other than behaving just as the
backend does violates POLA, in my view.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
