Tom Lane wrote:
> Adriaan Joubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > fdatasync() is available on Tru64 and according to the man-page behaves
> > as Tom expects. So it should be a win for us.
>
> Careful ... HPUX's man page also claims that fdatasync does something
> useful, but it doesn't. I'd recom
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 11:51:50AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Adriaan Joubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > fdatasync() is available on Tru64 and according to the man-page behaves
> > as Tom expects. So it should be a win for us.
>
> Careful ... HPUX's man page also claims that fdatasync does som
Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW, UnixWare 7.1.1 does *NOT* have fdatasync. What standard created
> this one?
HP's manpage quoth:
STANDARDS CONFORMANCE
fsync(): AES, SVID3, XPG3, XPG4, POSIX.4
fdatasync(): POSIX.4
regards, tom lane
Adriaan Joubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> fdatasync() is available on Tru64 and according to the man-page behaves
> as Tom expects. So it should be a win for us.
Careful ... HPUX's man page also claims that fdatasync does something
useful, but it doesn't. I'd recommend an experiment. Does t
* Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010218 10:53]:
> Adriaan Joubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > fdatasync() is available on Tru64 and according to the man-page behaves
> > as Tom expects. So it should be a win for us.
>
> Careful ... HPUX's man page also claims that fdatasync does something
> us
fdatasync() is available on Tru64 and according to the man-page behaves
as Tom expects. So it should be a win for us. What do other commercial
unixes say?
Adriaan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers) writes:
> I.e. yes, Linux 2.4.0 and ext2 do implement the distinction.
> Sorry for the misinformation.
Okay ... meanwhile I've got to report the reverse: I've just confirmed
that on HPUX 10.20, there is *not* a distinction between fsync and
fdatasync. I was misle
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 07:34:22PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers) writes:
> > In the 2.4 kernel it says (fs/buffer.c)
>
> >/* this needs further work, at the moment it is identical to fsync() */
> >down(&inode->i_sem);
> >err = file->f_op->fsync(file, dentry
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers) writes:
> In the 2.4 kernel it says (fs/buffer.c)
>/* this needs further work, at the moment it is identical to fsync() */
>down(&inode->i_sem);
>err = file->f_op->fsync(file, dentry);
>up(&inode->i_sem);
Hmm, that's the same code that's been ther
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 06:30:12PM -0500, Brent Verner wrote:
> On 17 Feb 2001 at 17:56 (-0500), Tom Lane wrote:
>
> [snipped]
>
> | Is anyone out there running a 2.4 Linux kernel? Would you try pgbench
> | with current sources, commit_delay=0, -B at least 1024, no -F, and see
> | how the resul
On 17 Feb 2001 at 17:56 (-0500), Tom Lane wrote:
[snipped]
| Is anyone out there running a 2.4 Linux kernel? Would you try pgbench
| with current sources, commit_delay=0, -B at least 1024, no -F, and see
| how the results change when pg_fsync is made to call fdatasync instead
| of fsync? (It's
11 matches
Mail list logo
