Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> ISTM Windows' idea of fsync is quite different from Unix's and therefore > >> we should name the wal_sync_method that invokes it something different > >> than fsync. "write_through" or some such? > > > Ah, I remember now. On Win32 our fsync is: > > #define fsync(a) _commit(a) > > I am wondering if we should call the new mode open_commit or > > open_writethrough. Our typical rule is to tie it to the API call, which > > should suggest open_commit. > > fsync_writethrough, perhaps. I don't see any "open" about it.
Sorry, yea, go confused. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
