On Monday 08 February 2010 05:53:23 Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>
> wrote:
> > Andres Freund escribió:
> >> I personally think the fsync on the directory should be added to the
> >> stable branches - other opinions?
> >> If wanted I can prepare patches for
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Andres Freund escribió:
>> I personally think the fsync on the directory should be added to the stable
>> branches - other opinions?
>> If wanted I can prepare patches for that.
>
> Yeah, it seems there are two patches here -- one is the add
Andres Freund escribió:
> I personally think the fsync on the directory should be added to the stable
> branches - other opinions?
> If wanted I can prepare patches for that.
Yeah, it seems there are two patches here -- one is the addition of
fsync_fname() and the other is the fsync_prepare stuf
On Sunday 07 February 2010 19:27:02 Andres Freund wrote:
> On Sunday 07 February 2010 19:23:10 Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Greg Smith writes:
> > >> This is turning into yet another one of those situations where
> > >> something simple and useful
On Sunday 07 February 2010 19:23:10 Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Greg Smith writes:
> >> This is turning into yet another one of those situations where something
> >> simple and useful is being killed by trying to generalize it way more
> >> than it ne
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Smith writes:
>> This is turning into yet another one of those situations where something
>> simple and useful is being killed by trying to generalize it way more
>> than it needs to be, given its current goals and its lack of external
>> in
Greg Smith writes:
> This is turning into yet another one of those situations where something
> simple and useful is being killed by trying to generalize it way more
> than it needs to be, given its current goals and its lack of external
> interfaces. There's no catversion bump or API breakage
Robert Haas wrote:
Well it seems that what we're trying to implement is more like
it_would_be_nice_if_you_would_start_syncing_this_file_range_but_its_ok_if_you_dont(),
so maybe that would work.
Anyway, is there something that we can agree on and get committed here
for 9.0, or should we postpone
