Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> [ shrug ] It's still broken, and the reason is that there's no
>> equivalent of fsync for directory operations. Consider
> Traditionally that's because directory operations were always
> synchronous, and hence didn't need to be fsynced.
That might be true with respect to the process requesting the directory
operation ... but I think you missed the point entirely.
regards, tom lane