"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How would syncsync differ from sync;sync? The second
> case will wait for the first command to return, or is there a race
> condition that's reduced by typing by hand?
The actual runtime of the "sync" program is epsilon, because it doesn't
wait for all
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 11:47:13AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 11:30:15PM -0800, Benjamin Arai wrote:
> >> Somebody said running "sync ; sync; sync" from the console. This seems
>
> > The reason is partly historical. On some OSes running sy
Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 11:30:15PM -0800, Benjamin Arai wrote:
>> Somebody said running "sync ; sync; sync" from the console. This seems
> The reason is partly historical. On some OSes running sync only starts
> the process but returns immediatly. However, there
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 11:30:15PM -0800, Benjamin Arai wrote:
> I want to be able to do large updates on an existing backed up database
> with fsync=off but at the end of the updates how do I ensure that the
> data gets synced?
Do you know if that actually makes it much faster? Maybe you're bet
I want to be able to do large updates on an existing backed up database
with fsync=off but at the end of the updates how do I ensure that the
data gets synced?
Somebody said running "sync ; sync; sync" from the console. This seems
reasonable but why not just "sync" or is there another command
