Re: Fairly serious bug induced by latest guc enum changes

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> Not having looked at md.c (I confess...) but don't we have a problem in
> case we have closed the file without fsyncing it, and then change the
> fsync parameter?

Well, we don't promise to retroactively fsync stuff we didn't before;
and I wouldn't expect that to happen if I were changing the setting.
What I *would* expect is that the system immediately starts to act
according to the new setting, and that's not true as the code stands.

As you say, the whole thing is pretty dubious from a data safety
standpoint anyway.  What I am concerned about here is people trying to
compare performance measurements under different settings, and not being
aware that the system's behavior doesn't change when they tell it to.
        regards, tom lane