Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC

> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > OK, but the point of adding all those configuration options was to allow
> > us to figure out which was faster.  If you can do the code so we no
> > longer need to know the answer of which is best, why bother adding the
> > config options.
> 
> How in the world did you arrive at that idea?  I don't see anyone around
> here but you claiming that we don't need any experimentation ...

I am trying to understand what testing we need to do.   I know we need
configure tests to check to see what exists in the OS.

My question was what are we needing to test?  If we can do only single writes
to the log, don't we prefer O_* to fsync, and the O_D* options over
plain O_*?  Am I confused?

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026