Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > My proposal is to remove fdatasync and open_datasync, and have have
> > fsync _prefer_ fdatasync, and open_sync prefer open_datastync, but fall
> > back to fsync and open_sync if the *data* version are not supported. 
> 
> And this will buy us what, other than lack of flexibility?

Clarity in testing options.

> The "data" options already are the default when available, I think
> (if not, I have no objection to making them so).  That does not

They are.

> equate to saying we should remove access to the other options.
> Your argument that they are useless only holds up in a perfect
> world where there are no hardware bugs and no kernel bugs ...
> and last I checked, we do not live in such a world.

Is it useful to have the option of using non-*data* options when *data*
options are available?  I have never heard of anyone wanting to do that,
nor do I imagine anyone doing that.  Is there a real use case?

--  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,
Pennsylvania19073