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