[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 misled by what was apparently an outlier result on my first try with fdatasync plugged in ... but when I couldn't reproduce that, some digging led to the fact that the fsync and fdatasync symbols in libc are at the same place :-(. Still, using fdatasync for the WAL file seems like a forward-looking thing to do, and it'll just take another couple of lines of configure code, so I'll go ahead and plug it in. regards, tom lane
- Re: [HACKERS] WAL and commit_delay Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] WAL and commit_delay Larry Rosenman
- Re: [HACKERS] WAL and commit_delay Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] WAL and commit_delay Larry Rosenman
- Re: [HACKERS] WAL and commit_delay Tom Lane
- [HACKERS] Re: WAL and commit_delay Brent Verner
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: WAL and commit_delay Nathan Myers
- [HACKERS] Re: Re: WAL and commit_delay Brent Verner
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: WAL and commit_delay Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: WAL and commit_delay Nathan Myers
- [HACKERS] Re: WAL and commit_delay Tom Lane
- [HACKERS] Re: WAL and commit_delay Adriaan Joubert
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: WAL and commit_delay Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: WAL and commit_delay Larry Rosenman
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: WAL and commit_delay Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: WAL and commit_delay Nathan Myers
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: WAL and commit_delay Jan Wieck
- Re: [HACKERS] WAL and commit_delay Nathan Myers
- Re: [HACKERS] WAL and commit_delay Jerome Vouillon
- Re: [HACKERS] WAL and commit_delay Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] WAL and commit_delay Matthew Kirkwood