Denis Perchine <dyp@perchine.com> writes:
> On Saturday 10 March 2001 08:41, Tom Lane wrote:
>> More numbers, these from a Powerbook G3 laptop running Linux 2.2:
> Eeegghhh. Sorry... But where did you get O_DSYNC on Linux?????
> bits/fcntl.h: # define O_DSYNC O_SYNC
Hm, must be. Okay, so those two sets of numbers should be taken as
fsync() and O_SYNC respectively. Still the conclusion seems pretty
clear: the open() options are way more efficient than calling fsync()
separately.
regards, tom lane